Intellectual humility links to metacognitive ability

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Helen Fischer , Astrid Kause , Markus Huff
{"title":"Intellectual humility links to metacognitive ability","authors":"Helen Fischer ,&nbsp;Astrid Kause ,&nbsp;Markus Huff","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2024.113028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Intellectual humility is increasingly recognized as a cognitive virtue that helps foster truth-seeking and compromise, and mitigating polarization. Yet the current body of evidence grapples with a striking contradiction: The prevailing theoretical account suggests that intellectual humility hinges on metacognitive ability—the capacity to introspect on one's own performance which manifests in assigning due confidence to the varying accuracy of one's performance. However, empirical research testing this <em>metacognitive</em> a<em>bility account of intellectual humility</em> has yielded inconsistent results. Here, we introduce a cognitive science approach informed by Signal Detection Theory, allowing for a more nuanced separation of metacognitive ability from correlated but distinct concepts (i.e., confidence and task performance). We conduct a national survey study among a national US sample (<em>N</em> = 999) involving the interpretation of one of the most heavily contested domains—climate change—lending itself for an investigation into how intellectual humility relates to cognitive processes in domains where it is most needed. To gauge participants' ability to distinguish true from false interpretations of evidence (i.e., task performance), we presented them with four summaries of fictitious studies on renewable energy, followed by 2-alternative forced choice questions that assessed their accuracy and confidence in their responses. Results showed that firstly, more intellectually humble citizens performed better at discerning correct from incorrect interpretations of the presented evidence. Secondly, more intellectually humble citizens exhibited a heightened capacity to adjust their confidence levels to the varying accuracy of their evidence interpretations–indicating higher metacognitive ability—and this association was robust to accounting for their superior task performance, and other preregistered covariates. And thirdly, in contrast to intuitive notions, more intellectually humble citizens did not exhibit lower metacognitive bias, the inclination to report lower (vs. higher) confidence in general. By highlighting the role of metacognitive ability in intellectual humility, the current study delivers empirical evidence for the ancient notion that epistemic virtues may involve metacognitive ability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"238 ","pages":"Article 113028"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924004884","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intellectual humility is increasingly recognized as a cognitive virtue that helps foster truth-seeking and compromise, and mitigating polarization. Yet the current body of evidence grapples with a striking contradiction: The prevailing theoretical account suggests that intellectual humility hinges on metacognitive ability—the capacity to introspect on one's own performance which manifests in assigning due confidence to the varying accuracy of one's performance. However, empirical research testing this metacognitive ability account of intellectual humility has yielded inconsistent results. Here, we introduce a cognitive science approach informed by Signal Detection Theory, allowing for a more nuanced separation of metacognitive ability from correlated but distinct concepts (i.e., confidence and task performance). We conduct a national survey study among a national US sample (N = 999) involving the interpretation of one of the most heavily contested domains—climate change—lending itself for an investigation into how intellectual humility relates to cognitive processes in domains where it is most needed. To gauge participants' ability to distinguish true from false interpretations of evidence (i.e., task performance), we presented them with four summaries of fictitious studies on renewable energy, followed by 2-alternative forced choice questions that assessed their accuracy and confidence in their responses. Results showed that firstly, more intellectually humble citizens performed better at discerning correct from incorrect interpretations of the presented evidence. Secondly, more intellectually humble citizens exhibited a heightened capacity to adjust their confidence levels to the varying accuracy of their evidence interpretations–indicating higher metacognitive ability—and this association was robust to accounting for their superior task performance, and other preregistered covariates. And thirdly, in contrast to intuitive notions, more intellectually humble citizens did not exhibit lower metacognitive bias, the inclination to report lower (vs. higher) confidence in general. By highlighting the role of metacognitive ability in intellectual humility, the current study delivers empirical evidence for the ancient notion that epistemic virtues may involve metacognitive ability.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信