hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6

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

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

Puni tekst: engleski, PDF (158 KB) str. 115-124 preuzimanja: 111* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Mata, A. (2019). Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect. Psihologijske teme, 28 (1), 115-124. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6
MLA 8th Edition
Mata, André. "Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect." Psihologijske teme, vol. 28, br. 1, 2019, str. 115-124. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6. Citirano 21.11.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition
Mata, André. "Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect." Psihologijske teme 28, br. 1 (2019): 115-124. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6
Harvard
Mata, A. (2019). 'Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect', Psihologijske teme, 28(1), str. 115-124. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6
Vancouver
Mata A. Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect. Psihologijske teme [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 21.11.2019.];28(1):115-124. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6
IEEE
A. Mata, "Further Tests of the Metacognitive Advantage Model: Counterfactuals, Confidence and Affect", Psihologijske teme, vol.28, br. 1, str. 115-124, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.6

Sažetak
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.

Ključne riječi
meta-reasoning; confidence; affect; counterfactual thinking; conflict detection

Hrčak ID: 219806

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/219806

Posjeta: 196 *