Thinking in the digital age: Everyday cognition and the dawn of a new age of metacognition research
Open accessAbstract
The special issue “Rethinking Cognition in a Digital Age” features a diverse set of contributions examining interactions between cognition and technology. In this commentary, we draw connections between this work and similar efforts in the everyday cognition tradition that emphasizes the importance of examining cognition in context. In addition, using the present contributions as inspiration, we suggest that one of the key directions for future research will be metacognitive. That is, with technology increasingly performing cognitive functions for us, understanding how we monitor and control internal and external cognitive resources to achieve our goals represents an important and exciting new frontier in cognitive psychology.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interventions that cue users to reflect on their goals and strategies via question prompts or conversational interfaces have been shown to improve outcomes in the workplace, education, and other domains.
“Interventions that cue users to reflect on their goals and strategies via question prompts or conversational interfaces have been shown to improve outcomes in the workplace [92,122,209], education [51], and other domains [17,147].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [147]
The Introduction describes questions about people’s goals for their photographs, but not an intervention designed to improve outcomes. Section 3 discusses monitoring and control when using digital tools; neither it nor the passages found by searching for question prompts, conversational interfaces, and interventions reports improved outcomes from reflective prompts in any domain. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSlower interfaces especially enable these benefits, as the waiting time often gets used for reflective thinking about the task at hand.
“Park et al. [138] similarly argue that “slower” interfaces especially enable these benefits, as the waiting time often gets used for reflective thinking about the task at hand (see also [147]).”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [147]
Section 3, “The Dawn of a New Age of Metacognition Research?” (page unavailable), discusses monitoring and control when people use digital tools. It does not say that slower interfaces enable benefits or that people use waiting time to reflect on a task; searches for those ideas and for delay or latency found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Search fluency as a misleading measure of memory.
Stone, S. M., & Storm, B. C. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000806 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a meta mne- monic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 127(1), 55-68.
- Cohen, G. (2008). The study of everyday memory. In G. Cohen, & M. A. Conway (Eds.), Memory in the Real World. Psychology Press.
- Dunn, T. L., Gaspar, G., McLean, D., Koehler, D. J., & Risko, E. F. (2021). Distributed metacognition: Increased bias and deficits in metacogni- tive sensitivity when retrieving information from the internet. Technol- ogy, Mind, and Behavior, 2(3), 39.
- Eliseev, E. D., & Marsh, E. J. (2023). Understanding why searching the internet inflates confidence in explanatory ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4058 · DOI · Paper page
- Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674-687.
- Gilbert, S. J., Bird, A., Carpenter, J. M., Fleming, S. M., Sachdeva, C., & Tsai, P. C. (2020). Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 149(3), 501-517.
- Hamilton, K., Siler, J., & Benjamin, A. S. (2023). Using the internet "raises the bar" for precision in self-produced question answering. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4072 · DOI
- Hamilton, K., Yamashiro, J. K., & Storm, B. C. (2023). Special issue of applied cognitive psychology: Rethinking cognition in a digital environ- ment. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4074 · DOI
- Hutmacher, F., Scläger, L., & Meerson, R. (2023). Autobiographical memory in the digital age: Insights based on the subjective reports of users of smart journaling apps. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10. 1002/acp.4033 · DOI · Paper page
- Kingstone, A., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2008). Cognitive ethology: A new approach for studying human cognition. British Journal of Psychol- ogy, 99, 317-340.
- Kvavilashvili, L., & Ellis, J. (2004). Ecological validity and twenty years of real-life/laboratory controversy in memory research: A critical (and historical) review. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 9, 1-42.
- Murphy, D. H. (2023). Strategic offloading: How the value of to- be-remembered information influences offloading decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4051 · DOI
- Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspect of Mem- ory (pp. 3-24). Academic Press.
- OpenAI. (2013). Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774. · arXiv
- Peña, T., Maswood, R., Chen, M., & Rajaram, S. (2023). Memory for head- lines versus tweets: Does message consistency matter? Applied Cogni- tive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4068 · DOI
- Pereira, A., Kelly, M. O., Lu, X., & Risko, E. F. (2022). On our susceptibility to external memory store manipulation: Examining the influence of perceived reliability and expected access to an external store. Memory, 30(4), 412-428.
- Soares, J. S. (2023). Comparing the functions of and recollections with recently taken and recently deleted smartphone camera photos. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4064 · DOI · Paper page
- Tsai, P., Sachdeva, C., Gilbert, S., & Scarampi, C. (2023). An investigation of the saving-enhanced memory effect: The role of test order and list sav- ing. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4067 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI
Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642902 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Rafner, J., Zana, B., Bang Hansen, I., Ceh, S., Sherson, J., Benedek, M., & Lebuda, I. (2025) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2025.2587803 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Risko, E. F., & Kelly, M. O.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Risko, Evan F.
- Venue
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-06-25
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 785-788
- ISSN
- 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0720
- OpenAlex
- W4381948485
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Keywords
- everyday cognition, metacognition, digital technologies, cognitive monitoring, cognitive control, future research directions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
