Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task

Double, Kit S.; Birney, Damian P. · 2018 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1007/s11409-018-9186-5

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 "reactivity" of confidence ratings (CR), examining whether the act of eliciting these ratings alters cognitive performance and metacognitive processes in older adults. While CR are commonly used to assess metacognition under the assumption that they are unobtrusive, prior research suggests they can significantly impact performance. The authors aim to clarify the mechanisms driving this reactivity by evaluating its effects on two components of the Nelson and Narens metacognitive framework: monitoring (self-appraisal accuracy) and control (strategic decision-making). The study specifically tests whether CR influence performance monitoring and whether they prompt participants to adopt performance-oriented control strategies, moderated by initial self-confidence. The researchers recruited a community sample of 89 older adults (mean age 64.18) who performed a timed Latin Square Task, a reasoning measure of fluid intelligence. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group (No-CR) or a group required to provide confidence ratings after each item (CR). Before the task, all participants provided a prospective confidence estimate; after completion, they provided a retrospective appraisal of their performance. The study analyzed overall accuracy, mean accuracy (items correct per item attempted), response times, and calibration (the discrepancy between retrospective appraisal and actual performance). Statistical analyses employed linear regression models to assess the effects of experimental group, prospective confidence, and their interaction on these outcomes. The results demonstrated that eliciting confidence ratings significantly impaired metacognitive monitoring. Participants in the CR group exhibited higher miscalibration scores, indicating less accurate retrospective appraisals of their performance compared to the control group. Further analysis revealed that CR participants based their retrospective judgments more heavily on their initial prospective confidence rather than on actual task performance, suggesting that CR direct attention toward information-based cues (self-beliefs) rather than experience-based cues (task difficulty). Regarding performance, CR had no effect on overall accuracy but significantly affected mean accuracy and response times depending on prospective confidence. High-confidence participants who provided CR spent more time on each item and achieved higher mean accuracy, adopting a persistence strategy. Conversely, low-confidence participants answered more quickly and performed worse, adopting a disengagement strategy. The findings challenge the assumption that confidence ratings are neutral measures of metacognition. Instead, they act as reactive prompts that alter metacognitive control strategies by activating self-relevant beliefs. For older adults, this leads to a shift toward immediate performance orientation: high-confidence individuals persist longer, while low-confidence individuals disengage sooner. Furthermore, the study indicates that CR degrade monitoring accuracy by biasing retrospective judgments toward pre-existing self-confidence. These results imply that using confidence ratings as an intervention to improve metacognitive monitoring in older adults may be counterproductive, as it reinforces potentially inaccurate self-beliefs rather than fostering accurate performance assessment.

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