Experimentally manipulated thought validation amplifies the performance impact of self-relevant thoughts on a geometric shapes task¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In Study 2 (N = 246), the Thought Valence × Validity interaction on shapes-task performance was significant, F(2, 240) = 5.929, p = .003, ηp² = .047. → Moreno 2022 q3 i1 Within the validation condition, positive-thought participants solved more problems (M = 2.40) than negative-thought participants (M = 1.75), F(1, 240) = 8.263, p = .004, ηp² = .033; within invalidation a non-significant reverse trend emerged (p = .062). → Moreno 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Moreno 2022¶

Moreno, L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Metacognitive Confidence Can Increase but Also Decrease Performance in Academic Settings. Metacognition and Learning, 17, 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09270-y

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Study 2 used a 2 (thought valence) × 3 (validation, invalidation, control) ANOVA on geometric shapes performance with 246 undergraduates. The omnibus interaction was significant with printed effect size ηρ2 = .047; neither main effect was significant.

"Most importantly, the results showed a significant interaction between thought valence and validity of thoughts, F (2, 240) = 5.929, p = .003, ηρ2 = .047 (see Fig. 2)."

Moreno 2022 (2)¶

Moreno, L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Metacognitive Confidence Can Increase but Also Decrease Performance in Academic Settings. Metacognition and Learning, 17, 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09270-y

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Simple-effects contrasts within the validation condition of Study 2 showed positive thoughts outperformed negative thoughts on the shapes task with printed effect size ηp2 = .033; within invalidation the pattern reversed as a "non-significant trend" (p = .062), so the effect is mixed across validity conditions.

"For thought-validation participants, those who generated positive thoughts solved more problems correctly ( M = 2.40, SD = 0.90, 95% CI = [2.11, 2.68]) than did those who generated negative thoughts ( M = 1.75, SD = 0.79, 95% CI = [1.43, 2.09]), F(1, 240) = 8.263, p = .004, ηp2 = .033."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Recalling past confidence versus doubt validates or invalidates thoughts and shifts GRE performance accordingly
• Metacognitive confidence moderates the effect of thought valence on academic performance: confidence amplifies positive thoughts' benefits and negative thoughts' harm
• Perceived thought validity mediates the effect of the confidence induction on performance