Social comparison information affects the magnitude of metacognitive judgments, with greater magnitude for higher peer performance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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.
q2 i? Presenting peer-performance information before metacognitive judgments affects judgment magnitude, with greater magnitude associated with higher performance; low-confidence participants may be especially susceptible. → Bol L and Hacker DJ 2012
Evidence¶
Bol L and Hacker DJ 2012¶
Bol L and Hacker DJ (2012) Calibration research: where do we go from here? Front. Psychology 3:229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00229
q2 · i? · theoretical · r3
Narrative review attributing this experimental result to Carvalho and Yuzawa (2001), who presented fictitious peer mean scores before participants made metacognitive judgments. The review reports "social comparisons did impact the magnitude of metacognitive judgments with greater magnitude in judgments associated with higher performance." No effect sizes are printed.
"Carvalho and Yuzawa (2001) manipulated social comparisons by presenting some participants with information concerning the mean percentage of correctly answered questions that a fictitious group of fellow students presumably scored. This information was presented prior to participants making their own metacognitive judgments on their performance. The results indicated that social comparisons did impact the magnitude of metacognitive judgments with greater magnitude in judgments associated with higher performance."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Eliciting confidence ratings leads to poorer metacognitive monitoring in older adults — related
- Second-order metacognitive judgments of subjective uncertainty show a small high-confidence error/correct difference, smaller than curiosity ratings show — related
- Metacognitive evaluations of effort and performance, rather than objective performance, drive spontaneous offloading — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
social-comparisons-affect-metacognitive-judgments |
title |
Social comparison information affects the magnitude of metacognitive judgments, with greater magnitude for higher peer performance |
description |
Social comparison information affects the magnitude of metacognitive judgments, with greater magnitude for higher peer performance |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2012 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — bol-l-and-hacker-dj-2012 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.