Abstract
Prospective and retrospective metacognitive judgments have been studied extensively in the field of memory; however, their accuracy has not been systematically compared. Such a comparison is important for studying how metacognitive judgments are formed. Here, we present the results of an experiment aiming to investigate the relation between performance in an anagram task and the accuracy of prospective and retrospective confidence judgments. Participants worked on anagrams and were then asked to respond whether a presented word was the solution. They also rated their confidence, either before or after the response and either before or after seeing the suggested solution. The results showed that although response accuracy always correlated with confidence, this relationship was weaker when metacognitive judgements were given before the response. We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of this finding for studies on metacognition and consciousness.
Highlights
When realizing we were wrong we sometimes disappointedly think: “But I was so sure!” We remember being certain that we would give the right answer or make the correct choice
How well does confidence predict future decision accuracy? Is certainty in a forthcoming response as accurate as certainty in a response that has been already given? In this article we present an experiment aiming to answer these questions by comparing metacognitive accuracy of prospective and retrospective confidence judgments
The common issue in those studies is the assessment of metacognitive accuracy, meaning the extent to which metacognitive judgments predict the accuracy of task performance
Summary
When realizing we were wrong we sometimes disappointedly think: “But I was so sure!” We remember being certain that we would give the right answer or make the correct choice. How well does confidence predict future decision accuracy? In this article we present an experiment aiming to answer these questions by comparing metacognitive accuracy of prospective and retrospective confidence judgments. The common issue in those studies is the assessment of metacognitive accuracy ( referred to as metacognitive sensitivity or performance), meaning the extent to which metacognitive judgments predict the accuracy of task performance ( called type 1 task). Many measures have been introduced (see e.g., Fleming and Dolan, 2012) which assess metacognition at different time points in relation to a type 1 response. The potential difference in metacognitive accuracy measured retrospectively and prospectively is often not taken into consideration.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
