Reactivity differs by rating scope: item-focused confidence ratings impaired rule learning while task-focused judgments of learning did not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The JOL condition showed no impairment on ambiguous transfer items, which the authors attribute to its task-level focus rather than item-level accuracy focus. → 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

Authors' interpretation in the Discussion of the contrast between the two rating conditions in the pre-registered experiment: the JOL asked for "a general assessment of how they were progressing" across the task, whereas the confidence rating targeted the accuracy of the prior item, and only the confidence rating condition showed impaired rule-learning.

"a general assessment of how they were progressing in terms of accomplishing the general goal of the task, which stands in contrast to a confidence rating which is focused entirely on the accuracy of a participant's prior response"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A minority of item judgments show downregulation of confidence after pre-monitoring, suggesting differentiated evaluation can sometimes trigger more accurate monitoring — related
• The confidence-rating impairment on ambiguous transfer items persists among participants who met the learning criterion
• Confidence ratings are unlikely to be an effective educational tool when knowledge transfer is the goal — related
• Eliciting confidence ratings impairs rule-based category learning compared to both no-rating and judgment-of-learning conditions on ambiguous transfer items — related
• Making JOLs is not a neutral act: metacognitive ratings reactively affect subsequent learning, so experiments need judgment-free conditions — related
• Confidence ratings do not impede category learning per se: no condition differences in training accuracy or on unambiguous and trained transfer items — related
• Response-time effects are limited to slower responding in the JOL condition during the first two training blocks — related