Averaged across three experiments, load-related appraisals correlated more strongly with response time than confidence did, while difficulty and confidence predicted accuracy more strongly than mental effort appraisals¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Averaged across experiments 1–3, mean within-participant appraisal-response time correlations were 0.49 (goal-driven effort), 0.46 (data-driven effort), 0.41 (difficulty), and −0.21 (confidence), all significant. → Emely Hoch 2023 q2 i? Averaged across experiments 1–3, mean within-participant appraisal-accuracy correlations were −0.18 (goal-driven effort), −0.25 (data-driven effort), −0.32 (difficulty), and 0.41 (confidence), all significant. → Emely Hoch 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Emely Hoch 2023¶

Emely Hoch, Yael Sidi, Rakefet Ackerman, Vincent Hoogerheide, Katharina Scheiter. (2023). Comparing Mental Effort, Difficulty, and Confidence Appraisals in Problem-Solving: A Metacognitive Perspective. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09779-5

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Table 2 row reporting mean within-participant Pearson correlations with response time averaged over the three experiments (CRT, MTT, MRT); all four averaged correlations (0.49, 0.46, 0.41, −0.21) differ significantly from zero, with load-related appraisals showing stronger response-time associations than confidence.

"Average across experiments 1–3 Appraisal-response time 0.49 (0.31) *** 0.46 (0.31) *** 0.41 (0.26) *** − 0.21 (0.27) ***"

Emely Hoch 2023 (2)¶

Emely Hoch, Yael Sidi, Rakefet Ackerman, Vincent Hoogerheide, Katharina Scheiter. (2023). Comparing Mental Effort, Difficulty, and Confidence Appraisals in Problem-Solving: A Metacognitive Perspective. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09779-5

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Table 2 row reporting mean within-participant Goodman–Kruskal γ correlations with accuracy averaged over the three experiments; difficulty (−0.32) and confidence (0.41, reversed sign) show stronger associations with success than the two effort appraisals (−0.18, −0.25).

"Appraisal-accuracy − 0.18 (0.40) ** − 0.25 (0.35) *** − 0.32 (0.38) *** 0.41 (0.38) ***"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the CRT experiment, confidence appraisals predicted solving accuracy more strongly than goal-driven effort appraisals — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In the CRT experiment, response time served as a significantly stronger cue for goal-driven effort, data-driven effort, and difficulty appraisals than for confidence appraisals — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In the non-verbal MTT experiment, response time served as a cue for goal-driven effort appraisals more than for confidence appraisals, partly replicating experiment 1 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In the mental rotation experiment, item complexity (rotation angle) served as a significant cue for all four appraisal types, with difficulty appraisals most sensitive — related