Skip to the main content

Original scientific paper

https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6

Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect

André Mata orcid id orcid.org/0000-0001-5087-4919 ; Universidade de Lisboa, CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Lisboa, Portugal


Full text: english PDF 158 Kb

page 115-124

downloads: 480

cite


Abstract

This study tested whether people have an accurate sense of how good their reasoning is, as measured by their confidence in their responses, and how good they feel after they give those responses. First, incorrect responders were unjustifiably confident in their responses. However, correct responders were even more confident, and this confidence boost was found to come from their awareness of alternative solutions that are intuitive but incorrect. An affect measure revealed the same pattern: correct responders felt better, and incorrect responders felt worse, after they solved reasoning problems, but this was only the case when post-reasoning affect was measured after participants were instructed to think of alternative solutions. Implications are discussed for the possibility of implicit error monitoring, the role of counterfactual thinking in meta-reasoning, and the use of affective measures in meta-reasoning research.

Keywords

meta-reasoning, confidence, affect, counterfactual thinking, conflict detection

Hrčak ID:

219806

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/219806

Visits: 966 *