In Experiment 1, the feedback group showed significantly lower absolute (unsigned) metacognitive bias than the no-feedback group at both pre-task and post-task¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Absolute metacognitive bias was significantly lower in the feedback group at both timepoints, with a significant main effect of Group and no significant Group x Timepoint interaction. → Ceri Ngai and Sam J. Gilbert 2026

Evidence¶

Ceri Ngai and Sam J. Gilbert 2026¶

Ceri Ngai and Sam J. Gilbert (2026). Metacognitive training facilitates optimal cognitive offloading. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00714-0

q3 · i2 · causal · r3

Additional non-pre-registered ANOVA on absolute metacognitive bias in Experiment 1 (N = 164). The feedback group was "significantly less biased than the no-feedback group" at pre-task (d = 0.59) and post-task (d = 0.47).

"we observed a significant main effect of Group (F(1, 162) = 17.6, p < .001, η2ₚ = .098) while the Group x Timepoint interaction was not significant (F(1, 162) = 3.68, p = .06, η2ₚ = .022)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Self-Regulation — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Self Assessment Accuracy Is Low Without Training — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• In Experiment 1, the feedback intervention reduced pre-task signed metacognitive bias (underconfidence) but the group difference did not persist at post-task — related
• In Experiment 2, making metacognitive predictions alone did not improve calibration, performance feedback was sufficient, and explicit metacognitive feedback added no significant benefit — related
• Metacognitive monitoring bias during competitive Kahoots did not differ by competitive preference, though bias shifted across time — related