Immediate truth – Temporal contiguity between a cognitive problem and its solution determines experienced veracity of the solution
Abstract
A temporal contiguity hypothesis for the experience of veracity is tested which states that a solution candidate to a cognitive problem is more likely to be experienced as correct the faster it succeeds the problem. Experiment 1 varied the onset time of the appearance of proposed solutions to anagrams (50 ms vs. 150 ms) and found for both correct and incorrect candidates that faster appearing solutions were more frequently judged as being correct, although participants were not aware of the difference in onset delay. Experiment 2 replicated this effect with mathematical equations, shorter onset latencies (0 ms vs. 50 ms), and a reversed sequence (presenting first the solution and then the problem). Experiment 3 showed that the probability of judging a word as the solution of a remote associate insight problem decreases linearly with increasing onset delay (50 ms, 150 ms, 300 ms). Possible neurobiological-cognitive explanations for this effect are proposed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
By increasing people's confidence, such cues can affect their metacognitive control, leading people to decrease the effort they invest into further deliberate processing, as measured by thinking time and changes-of-mind.
“By increasing people's confidence, such cues can affect their metacognitive control, leading people to decrease the effort they invest into further deliberate processing, as measured by thinking time and changes-of-mind [4,183,184].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
Cites
Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195 · Cited by 1,412 · see citing works
Frequency and the conference of referential validity
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80012-1 · Cited by 920 · see citing works
Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.4.446 · Cited by 650 · see citing works
Induction of synaptic potentiation in hippocampus by patterned stimulation involves two events
Larson, J., & Lynch, G. (1986) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3704635 · Cited by 597 · cited 1× · see citing works
“(McClelland, McNaughton, & O’Reilly, 1995, p. 453; see also Gluck & Myers, 2001; Larson & Lynch, 1986).”
Flagged first, then by citations
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
“We first briefly summarize early evidence on how GenAI is impacting user workflows, and then discuss the role of metacognition in users’ workflow automation strategy.”
BackgroundReber, R., & Greifeneder, R. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1258173 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Self-citationHeuristic Cues for Meta-Reasoning Judgments: Review and Methodology
Ackerman, R. (2019) · Psihologijske teme · doi:10.31820/pt.28.1.1 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Topolinski, S., & Reber, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Würzburg (DE)
- University of Bergen (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Topolinski, Sascha
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 117-122
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053302332
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Keywords
- temporal contiguity, honesty, insight problem solving, anagrams, equations, delayed onset
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Language Tests, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Time Perception
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