Metacognition for prospective memory performance in younger and older adults: does the reference point affect our judgments?

Scarampi, Chiara; Kliegel, Matthias · 2025 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1080/13825585.2025.2532426

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the complex relationship between metacognition and prospective memory (PM) performance in younger and older adults, specifically examining how reference points, assessment timing, and subjective age influence self-evaluations. While older adults often report general memory concerns, they frequently display overconfidence in laboratory-based PM tasks, a phenomenon that contrasts with their sometimes superior performance in naturalistic settings. The authors sought to determine whether prompting older adults to compare their abilities to peers rather than using absolute standards would reduce this overconfidence, and whether the order of administering PM tasks versus metamemory questionnaires affects calibration. Additionally, the study explored the role of subjective age—how old individuals feel relative to their chronological age—in shaping these metacognitive judgments. The research comprised two preregistered online experiments involving younger adults (18–30 years) and older adults (65+ years). Participants completed an event-based PM task embedded within a lexical-decision ongoing task, where they had to interrupt their response to identify specific target words. Metacognitive assessments included pre-task performance predictions and standardized memory questionnaires (MPMI-s, PRMQ, MMQ). Experiment 1 manipulated the reference point for performance estimates (absolute probability vs. percentile rank compared to peers) and the order of administration (questionnaires before vs. after the PM task). Experiment 2 refined the peer comparison, added a control condition, assessed both prospective and retrospective metacognitive judgments, and measured subjective age. Cognitive abilities were controlled for using fluid and crystallized intelligence measures. The results revealed that participants were generally overconfident when comparing their expected performance to peers but underconfident when making general performance predictions. Retrospective judgments made after task completion were better calibrated than prospective predictions. Notably, older adults performed similarly to younger adults on the PM task yet reported better self-perceived memory abilities regardless of actual performance. Subjective age was positively associated with overconfidence in older adults; those who felt younger exhibited stronger confidence in their memory capabilities. Furthermore, the order of administration significantly impacted self-evaluations: completing the PM task before the metamemory questionnaires led to lower self-ratings and more reported memory failures across both age groups, suggesting that immediate task experience recalibrates metacognitive beliefs. These findings underscore the reactive nature of metacognition to external comparisons and procedural factors. The study demonstrates that older adults’ metacognitive biases are not static but are shaped by the reference points provided and the timing of assessments. The link between subjective age and overconfidence suggests that psychological perceptions of aging influence cognitive self-efficacy. By highlighting how external comparisons and task-induced recalibration affect memory judgments, the research provides insights into the mechanisms underlying the “age-prospective memory paradox.” This understanding is crucial for developing interventions that leverage metacognitive strategies to support memory performance and independence in aging populations.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• decision making risk perception