Future anti-phishing interventions should measure both performance and metacognition, aiming to shift the phishing calibration curve toward the legitimate-email pattern¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q1
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? The article recommends that future studies developing anti-phishing interventions investigate both performance and metacognition metrics to understand how users shift decision-making strategies. → Casey Inez Canfield & Baruch Fischhoff & Alex Davis 2019
Evidence¶
Casey Inez Canfield & Baruch Fischhoff & Alex Davis 2019¶
Casey Inez Canfield & Baruch Fischhoff & Alex Davis. (2019). Better beware: comparing metacognition for phishing and legitimate emails. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09197-5
q1 · i? · causal · r1
Authors' forward-looking recommendation in the Implications for interventions section, grounded in the observed disparity in metacognitive performance between legitimate and phishing emails. They also propose within-subject analysis of which phishing features make messages deceptive.
"Future studies developing anti-phishing interventions should investigate both performance and metacognition metrics to understand how users are shifting their decision-making strategies. If successful, an intervention might make the calibration curve for phishing messages look more like the curve for legitimate emails."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Calibration is worse and resolution better for phishing emails than for legitimate emails — related
- Participants are consistently overconfident for phishing emails but relatively well calibrated for legitimate emails except at 100% confidence — related
- Email-detection confidence judgments show good calibration but poor resolution, with aggregate overconfidence of 18% — related
- Phishing email difficulty varies widely (15–85% correct) while mean confidence varies little (80–90%), leaving some victims unaware they were fooled — related
- Better resolution on the laboratory phishing task predicts lower odds of malicious files on participants' home computers — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
measure-performance-and-metacognition-in-interventions |
title |
Future anti-phishing interventions should measure both performance and metacognition, aiming to shift the phishing calibration curve toward the legitimate-email pattern |
description |
Future anti-phishing interventions should measure both performance and metacognition, aiming to shift the phishing calibration curve toward the legitimate-email pattern |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — casey-inez-canfield-baruch-fischhoff-alex-davis-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.