在感性决策任务中,报告信心会降低反应和改变主意的准确性。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Piotr Litwin, Borysław Paulewicz, Marta Siedlecka
{"title":"在感性决策任务中,报告信心会降低反应和改变主意的准确性。","authors":"Piotr Litwin, Borysław Paulewicz, Marta Siedlecka","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-monitoring seems to be crucial for regulatory behavior, but it is not clear how it influences performance in simple cognitive tasks. Some studies suggest that increased monitoring improves metacognitive regulation and enhances performance, while others suggest it impairs learning, problem solving, or perceptual processes. We investigated whether the requirement to report confidence in perceptual decisions affects metacognitive regulation and response accuracy. Participants performed a visual discrimination task in which they provided two responses: initial and final. Depending on the condition, participants reported their confidence (either together with or following the initial decision), performed an additional task, or were asked to observe a blank screen between two responses. We expected that reporting decision confidence would induce efficient regulatory activity, which would benefit final accuracy. In three experiments, we did not find evidence that rating confidence improves regulatory processing or performance in perceptual tasks. Rather, when confidence ratings were retrospective, the final response improvement was smaller compared to the condition with no additional task, and changes of mind were less frequent and less corrective. Confidence ratings given jointly with the initial response generally decreased accuracy. The results suggest that deliberate monitoring might put additional strain on cognitive resources and impair lower-order task processing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","volume":" ","pages":"612-628"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting confidence decreases response and change-of-mind accuracy in a perceptual decision task.\",\"authors\":\"Piotr Litwin, Borysław Paulewicz, Marta Siedlecka\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xhp0001297\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Self-monitoring seems to be crucial for regulatory behavior, but it is not clear how it influences performance in simple cognitive tasks. Some studies suggest that increased monitoring improves metacognitive regulation and enhances performance, while others suggest it impairs learning, problem solving, or perceptual processes. We investigated whether the requirement to report confidence in perceptual decisions affects metacognitive regulation and response accuracy. Participants performed a visual discrimination task in which they provided two responses: initial and final. Depending on the condition, participants reported their confidence (either together with or following the initial decision), performed an additional task, or were asked to observe a blank screen between two responses. We expected that reporting decision confidence would induce efficient regulatory activity, which would benefit final accuracy. In three experiments, we did not find evidence that rating confidence improves regulatory processing or performance in perceptual tasks. Rather, when confidence ratings were retrospective, the final response improvement was smaller compared to the condition with no additional task, and changes of mind were less frequent and less corrective. Confidence ratings given jointly with the initial response generally decreased accuracy. The results suggest that deliberate monitoring might put additional strain on cognitive resources and impair lower-order task processing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"612-628\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001297\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001297","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自我监控似乎对调节行为至关重要,但目前尚不清楚它如何影响简单认知任务的表现。一些研究表明,增加监控可以改善元认知调节并提高表现,而另一些研究则认为它会损害学习、解决问题或感知过程。我们调查了在知觉决策中报告信心的要求是否影响元认知调节和反应准确性。参与者完成了一项视觉辨别任务,在这项任务中,他们提供了两个答案:初始和最终。根据不同的条件,参与者报告了他们的信心(要么与最初的决定一起,要么遵循最初的决定),执行了额外的任务,或者被要求在两个回答之间观察空白屏幕。我们期望报告决策信心会导致有效的监管活动,这将有利于最终的准确性。在三个实验中,我们没有发现证据表明评级信心可以改善知觉任务中的调节处理或表现。相反,当信心评级是回顾性的时候,与没有额外任务的情况相比,最终的反应改善要小得多,而且改变想法的频率和纠正性都更低。与初始反应一起给出的信心评级通常会降低准确性。结果表明,刻意的监控可能会给认知资源带来额外的压力,并损害低阶任务的处理。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reporting confidence decreases response and change-of-mind accuracy in a perceptual decision task.

Self-monitoring seems to be crucial for regulatory behavior, but it is not clear how it influences performance in simple cognitive tasks. Some studies suggest that increased monitoring improves metacognitive regulation and enhances performance, while others suggest it impairs learning, problem solving, or perceptual processes. We investigated whether the requirement to report confidence in perceptual decisions affects metacognitive regulation and response accuracy. Participants performed a visual discrimination task in which they provided two responses: initial and final. Depending on the condition, participants reported their confidence (either together with or following the initial decision), performed an additional task, or were asked to observe a blank screen between two responses. We expected that reporting decision confidence would induce efficient regulatory activity, which would benefit final accuracy. In three experiments, we did not find evidence that rating confidence improves regulatory processing or performance in perceptual tasks. Rather, when confidence ratings were retrospective, the final response improvement was smaller compared to the condition with no additional task, and changes of mind were less frequent and less corrective. Confidence ratings given jointly with the initial response generally decreased accuracy. The results suggest that deliberate monitoring might put additional strain on cognitive resources and impair lower-order task processing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
145
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
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