Cited by 72Cognitive Functions and MemoryMemory Processes and InfluencesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Excessive use of reminders: Metacognition and effort-minimisation in cognitive offloading

Open access
Sachdeva, Chhavi, Gilbert, Sam J.·2020·Consciousness and Cognition

Abstract

People often use external reminders to help remember delayed intentions. This is a form of "cognitive offloading". Individuals sometimes offload more often than would be optimal (Gilbert et al., 2020). This bias has been linked to participants' erroneous metacognitive underconfidence in their memory abilities. However, underconfidence is unlikely to fully explain the bias. An additional, previously-untested factor that may contribute to the offloading bias is a preference to avoid cognitive effort associated with remembering internally. The present Registered Report examined evidence for this hypothesis. One group of participants received payment contingent on their performance of the task (hypothesised to increase cognitive effort, and therefore reduce the bias towards offloading); another group received a flat payment for taking part, as in the earlier experiment. The offloading bias was significantly reduced (but not eliminated) in the rewarded group, suggesting that a preference to avoid cognitive effort influences cognitive offloading.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.concog.2020.103024

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Learners have a tendency to offload more than would be optimal for retention.

    “It has been illustrated in the cognitive offloading literature that learners have the tendency to offload more than would be optimal for retention.”

    From <b>Effects of Partial vs. Full Cognitive Offloading with Generative AI on Learning Retention </b> (2026) · cites this paper as Sachdeva & Gilbert, 2020

    The Abstract reports that people sometimes offload more often than is optimal. In “Biases and optimality in cognitive offloading” (page unavailable), however, optimality is defined by points earned on a delayed-intention task, not by learners’ retention. The source supports a tendency toward excessive offloading, but not the claimed retention outcome. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sachdeva, C., & Gilbert, S. J.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Sachdeva, Chhavi
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
85
Pages
103024
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3092023288
Cited by
72
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cognitive offloading, metacognition, delayed intentions, memory, financial incentives, cognitive effort
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Humans, Mental Recall, Reward, Intention, Memory, Episodic

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