{"title":"On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?","authors":"Chris M. Fiacconi","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09399-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The relationship between confidence and accuracy has long been an important and controversial topic within the field of human memory. In a recent review article, Schwartz (2024). <i>Inferential theories of retrospective confidence</i>. Metacognition & Learning.) competently summarized some of the key empirical findings on this issue and clearly articulated two different extant theoretical approaches to understanding this relationship. The <i>direct access</i> view states that one’s confidence in a memory is tied directly to the strength of the encoded memory trace, predicting a strong and near ubiquitous positive relationship between confidence and accuracy. In contrast, the <i>inferential view</i> holds that confidence is inferred from the heuristic use of available cues, and that any positive relationship between confidence and accuracy stems from the use of cues that correlate positively with accuracy. Here, I propose an alternative view that blends aspects of both accounts. Termed the <i>indirect access</i> account, I argue that memory signals and their experiential correlates form the basis of confidence judgments. This approach anticipates reported dissociations between confidence and accuracy, and accommodates a broad range of empirical findings. By this view, rare instances of weak confidence-accuracy relationships stem from strong misleading memory signals that experientially mimic strong accurate memory signals. Because strong memory signals are largely accurate, this view predicts a pervasive and robust positive relationship between confidence and accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09399-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The relationship between confidence and accuracy has long been an important and controversial topic within the field of human memory. In a recent review article, Schwartz (2024). Inferential theories of retrospective confidence. Metacognition & Learning.) competently summarized some of the key empirical findings on this issue and clearly articulated two different extant theoretical approaches to understanding this relationship. The direct access view states that one’s confidence in a memory is tied directly to the strength of the encoded memory trace, predicting a strong and near ubiquitous positive relationship between confidence and accuracy. In contrast, the inferential view holds that confidence is inferred from the heuristic use of available cues, and that any positive relationship between confidence and accuracy stems from the use of cues that correlate positively with accuracy. Here, I propose an alternative view that blends aspects of both accounts. Termed the indirect access account, I argue that memory signals and their experiential correlates form the basis of confidence judgments. This approach anticipates reported dissociations between confidence and accuracy, and accommodates a broad range of empirical findings. By this view, rare instances of weak confidence-accuracy relationships stem from strong misleading memory signals that experientially mimic strong accurate memory signals. Because strong memory signals are largely accurate, this view predicts a pervasive and robust positive relationship between confidence and accuracy.
期刊介绍:
The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills.
Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed.
Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices.
One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.