Eliciting confidence ratings leads to poorer metacognitive monitoring in older adults¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? CR participants based their retrospective appraisals on prospective confidence to a greater extent than controls. → Double 2018

Evidence¶

Double 2018¶

Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9186-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Follow-up regression with retrospective appraisal as criterion showed Overall Accuracy predicted appraisals (b = .47, p = .001), but the group × prospective confidence interaction (b = 61.02, p = .002) indicated CR participants weighted prospective confidence more heavily.

"Crucially, the group × prospective confidence interaction effect was significant, b = 61.02, t = 3.27, p = .002. Simple slopes analysis indicated that prospective confidence significantly positively predicted retrospective appraisals only in the CR group, b = 86.69, t = 6.54, p < .001, but not the No-CR group, b = 25.67, t = 1.96, p = .054"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Confidence ratings improve short-term accuracy for high prospective-confidence older adults but impair it for low prospective-confidence adults — related
• Eliciting confidence ratings produces no significant difference in overall accuracy on a timed reasoning task in older adults — related
• Confidence ratings shift time allocation on a timed task in opposite directions for high- versus low-confidence older adults — related
• The literature is mixed on age differences in the accuracy of retrospective confidence judgments during recognition memory tests, with older adults sometimes producing more high-confidence false alarms and poorer resolution with deceptive lures — related
• Older adults show higher retrospective metacognitive accuracy than young adults in the selection-only task, especially on homogeneous unit-digit problems, but comparable accuracy in the selection-execution task — related
• Young and older adults make accurate retrospective confidence judgments but not prospective ease-of-selection judgments about their arithmetic strategy selections — related
• Low-confidence judgments on one problem predict better strategy selection on the immediately following problem, equally in young and older adults — related
• Retrospective metacognitive accuracy for strategy selection is higher in the selection-only task than the selection-execution task and on homogeneous than heterogeneous unit-digit problems — related
• Higher (worse) prospective discrepancy scores predict higher metacognitive sensitivity on a memory task — related
• Lower (better) retrospective discrepancy scores predict higher metacognitive sensitivity on a memory task — related
• Social comparison information affects the magnitude of metacognitive judgments, with greater magnitude for higher peer performance — related
• Collecting metacognitive judgments did not disrupt typical strategy selection and execution: both age groups selected the better strategy more on rounding-up homogeneous problems and executed rounding-down faster on homogeneous problems — related
• Monitoring accuracy interventions are more effective for retrospective confidence judgments than for judgments of learning — related