Response-time effects are limited to slower responding in the JOL condition during the first two training blocks¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The condition × block interaction on training response times was significant, with the JOL group responding significantly slower than both the no-rating and confidence rating groups in Blocks 1 and 2. → Kit S. Double 2025

Evidence¶

Kit S. Double 2025¶

Kit S. Double, Micah B. Goldwater, Damian P. Birney. (2025). Reactivity to confidence ratings: evidence of impaired rule-learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09413-5

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Mixed ANOVA on training response times. The JOL condition also responded significantly slower than the confidence rating group in Block 1, t(706) = 2.74, p =.015, and Block 2, t(706) = 2.51, p =.037. No significant main effect of condition was found.

"The interaction between block number and condition was significant, F(10, 3530) = 2.54, p =.005, ηp2 =. 007. Post-hoc tests with Holm corrections suggested that in the JOL condition responded significantly slower than the no-rating group in Block 1, t(706) = 2.83, p =.015, and Block 2, t(706) = 2.35, p =.038."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Confidence ratings do not impede category learning per se: no condition differences in training accuracy or on unambiguous and trained transfer items — related
• Eliciting confidence ratings impairs rule-based category learning compared to both no-rating and judgment-of-learning conditions on ambiguous transfer items — related
• Reactivity differs by rating scope: item-focused confidence ratings impaired rule learning while task-focused judgments of learning did not — related