Model-free metacognition
Abstract
Extensive work has been done on the metacognitive capacities of humans, as well as to investigate metacognitive processes in nonhuman animals. What we propose here, however, is that there are two very different forms that metacognition can take: either model-based (implicating at least a simplified model of the thinker's own mind), or model-free (representing some mental state or process in oneself in the absence of any such model). The focus of all work on human metacognitive judgments has been on the model-based variety, as have been most attempts to discover metacognition in animals. We first review recent studies suggesting that there are no resources shared between human metacognitive judgments and the sorts of behavioral tests employed with animals, implying that the latter fail to provide evidence of even simplified forms of model-based metacognition. Thereafter the question of model-free metacognition in animals is pursued. Negative verdicts are rendered on a pair of possible claims of this sort. But two positive answers are defended. One is that epistemic emotions like curiosity and interest, as well as the signals involved in failed memory searches, implicate representations whose content is, unknown. The other is that decisions to deploy attentional / mental effort (which many animals besides humans can do) depend on appraisals of an analog-magnitude signal representing the extent to which executive resources are engaged.
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?
This stage qualifies as model-free metacognition in that it has a mental state of the self (the proposition) among its correctness conditions.
“This stage qualifies as (model-free) metacognition in that it has a mental state of the self (the proposition) among its correctness conditions (Carruthers & Williams 2022).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Carruthers & Williams 2022
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 159 · Cited by 71
- Authors
- Carruthers, P., & Williams, D. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- University of Kent (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Carruthers, Peter
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-08
- Volume
- 225
- Pages
- 105117
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4223540106
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 159
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 7.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/M009890/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Keywords
- metacognition, metacognitive judgments, animal cognition, epistemic emotions, curiosity, attentional effort, executive function, self-knowledge
- MeSH terms
- Metacognition, Attention, Humans, Judgment
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