In the mental rotation experiment, item complexity (rotation angle) served as a significant cue for all four appraisal types, with difficulty appraisals most sensitive¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 In experiment 3 (MRT), mean within-participant appraisal-item complexity correlations were 0.22 (goal-driven effort), 0.21 (data-driven effort), 0.28 (difficulty), and −0.16 (confidence), all significant. → Emely Hoch 2023

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 · i2 · causal · r?

Table 2 row for experiment 3 (mental rotation task), where rotation angle was the objective measure of item complexity; all four appraisal types correlated significantly with complexity, with mean within-participant Pearson correlations of r = 0.22, r = 0.21, r = 0.28, and r = −0.16, difficulty most strongly and confidence most weakly.

"Appraisal-item com- plexity 0.22 (0.21) *** 0.21 (0.23) *** 0.28 (0.23) *** − 0.16 (0.17) ***"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• Subjective effort ratings are sensitive to variations in task complexity, with higher ratings for complex tasks — a broader claim this one bears on