Confidence ratings shift time allocation on a timed task in opposite directions for high- versus low-confidence older adults¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The group × prospective confidence interaction on mean response time was significant: high-confidence CR participants spent longer per item, low-confidence CR participants answered more quickly 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

Regression on mean response time (R2 = .06, F(3,85) = 1.93, p = .131) in the CR experiment found a significant interaction, b = 32.44, p = .021; there was no significant main effect of group (p = .999).

"the group × perspective confidence interaction was significant, b = 32.44, t = 2.36, p = .021. As shown in Fig. 5, high confidence participants spent lon ger on each individual item if asked to provide confidence ratings, whereas low confidence participants answered more quick- ly if asked to provide confidence ratings (compared to No-CR controls)."

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
• Eliciting confidence ratings leads to poorer metacognitive monitoring in older adults — related