In Experiment 1, retrospective judgments after firsthand experience still showed the metacognitive illusion, and it was amplified in participants who had earlier given prospective judgments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Participants judged masked speech to have been more distracting than pure speech (η²p = .25), and the speech type effect interacted with group (η²p = .04), being larger in the prospective-judgment group (η²p = .32) than in the control group (η²p = .17). → Gesa Fee Komar 2025

q3 i3 Participants judged masked speech to have been more distracting than pure speech (η²p = .24), with a significant speech type × group interaction (η²p = .04); the speech type effect was larger in the prospective-judgment group (η²p = .33) than in the control group (η²p = .15). → Gesa Fee Komar 2025

Evidence¶

Gesa Fee Komar 2025¶

Gesa Fee Komar, Axel Buchner, Laura Mieth, Raoul Bell. (2025). Partially masking task-irrelevant speech has opposite effects on metacognitive judgments of distraction and objective distraction effects. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09436-y

q3 · i3 · causal · r3

After the serial-recall task, all 309 Experiment 1 participants gave retrospective judgments of how distracting each speech type had been. The article reports the main effect of speech type (η²p = .25) and the significant speech type × group interaction (η²p = .04), with the effect larger in the prospective-judgment group.

"Participants judged masked speech to have been significantly more distracting than pure speech, F(1, 307) = 99.67, p < .001, η2 p = .25. Whether or not participants were asked to provide prospective judgments before the objective distraction effects were measured did not affect the retrospective judgments overall, F(1, 307) = 2.21, p = .138, η2 p = .01, but interacted significantly with speech type, F(1, 307) = 12.10, p < .001, η2 p = .04."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 1, participants were objectively less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech in serial recall, although both types caused significant distraction relative to quiet — related
• In Experiment 1, participants predicted masked speech (speech in pink noise) to be more distracting than pure speech, even predicting pure speech to be slightly helpful — related
• In Experiment 2 with speech babble masking, participants again predicted masked speech to be more distracting than pure speech while being objectively less distracted by it, replicating Experiment 1 — related