Abstract

Questions of how we know our own and other minds, and whether metacognition and mindreading rely on the same processes, are longstanding in psychology and philosophy. In Experiment 1, children/adolescents with autism (who tend to show attenuated mindreading) showed significantly lower accuracy on an explicit metacognition task than neurotypical children/adolescents, but not on an allegedly metacognitive implicit one. In Experiment 2, neurotypical adults completed these tasks in a single-task condition or a dual-task condition that required concurrent completion of a secondary task that tapped mindreading. Metacognitive accuracy was significantly diminished by the dual-mindreading-task on the explicit task but not the implicit task. In Experiment 3, we included additional dual-tasks to rule out the possibility that any secondary task (regardless of whether it required mindreading) would diminish metacognitive accuracy. Finally, in both Experiments 1 and 2, metacognitive accuracy on the explicit task, but not the implicit task, was associated significantly with performance on a measure of mindreading ability. These results suggest that explicit metacognitive tasks (used frequently to measure metacognition in humans) share metarepresentational processing resources with mindreading, whereas implicit tasks (which are claimed by some comparative psychologists to measure metacognition in nonhuman animals) do not.

Highlights

  • M-Ratio scores were subject to a condition ϫ task ANOVA, which yielded a nonsignificant effect of task, F(1, 155) ϭ 2.16, p ϭ .14, ␩p2 ϭ

  • With regard to our first question about whether metacognition and mindreading share the same metarepresentational resources, we found that judgment-of-confidence accuracy was significantly diminished in ASD, indicating that metacognition is impaired in this disorder

  • Contrary to the claims of some that metacognition is unimpaired whereas mindreading is diminished in ASD, we found no evidence of a dissociation between metacognition and mindreading among participants with ASD

Read more

Summary

Objectives

One of our goals was to discriminate between the two competing explanations of the cognitive resources employed in the implicit task

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.