CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Social and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs

Open access
Rollwage, Max, Dolan, Raymond J., Fleming, Stephen M.·2018·Current Biology
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053PMC PMC6303190
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Widening polarization about political, religious, and scientific issues threatens open societies, leading to entrenchment of beliefs, reduced mutual understanding, and a pervasive negativity surrounding the very idea of consensus [1, 2]. Such radicalization has been linked to systematic differences in the certainty with which people adhere to particular beliefs [3-6]. However, the drivers of unjustified certainty in radicals are rarely considered from the perspective of models of metacognition, and it remains unknown whether radicals show alterations in confidence bias (a tendency to publicly espouse higher confidence), metacognitive sensitivity (insight into the correctness of one's beliefs), or both [7]. Within two independent general population samples (n = 381 and n = 417), here we show that individuals holding radical beliefs (as measured by questionnaires about political attitudes) display a specific impairment in metacognitive sensitivity about low-level perceptual discrimination judgments. Specifically, more radical participants displayed less insight into the correctness of their choices and reduced updating of their confidence when presented with post-decision evidence. Our use of a simple perceptual decision task enables us to rule out effects of previous knowledge, task performance, and motivational factors underpinning differences in metacognition. Instead, our findings highlight a generic resistance to recognizing and revising incorrect beliefs as a potential driver of radicalization.

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.cub.2018.10.053

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Metacognitive efficiency is predictive of individual differences in dogmatism about real-world issues such as politics and climate change, with the parameters governing confidence-based control correlating with people's openness to new information.

    “Conversely, metacognitive efficiency is predictive of individual differences in dogmatism about real-world issues such as politics and climate change (Fischer et al. 2019, Rollwage et al. 2018), with the parameters governing confidence-based control correlating with people's openness to new information (Schulz et al. 2020).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Rollwage et al. 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [1]Kohut A. Doherty C. Dimock M. Keeter S. Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years 2012 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS
  2. [4]Toner K. Leary M.R. Asher M.W. Jongman-Sereno K.P. Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority Psychol. Sci. 24 2013 2454 2462 24096379
  3. [5]Greenberg J. Jonas E. Psychological motives and political orientation--the left, the right, and the rigid: comment on Jost et al. (2003) Psychol. Bull. 129 2003 376 382 discussion 383–393 12784935
  4. [6]Brandt M.J. Evans A.M. Crawford J.T. The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors Psychol. Sci. 26 2015 189 202 25512050
  5. [8]Ais J. Zylberberg A. Barttfeld P. Sigman M. Individual consistency in the accuracy and distribution of confidence judgments Cognition 146 2016 377 386 26513356
  6. [9]Rouault M. Seow T. Gillan C.M. Fleming S.M. Psychiatric symptom dimensions are associated with dissociable shifts in metacognition but not task performance Biol. Psychiatry 84 2018 443 451 29458997 PMC6117452
  7. [11]Fleming S.M. van der Putten E.J. Daw N.D. Neural mediators of changes of mind about perceptual decisions Nat. Neurosci. 21 2018 617 624 29531361 PMC5878683
  8. [13]Rabbitt P.M. Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks J. Exp. Psychol. 71 1966 264 272 5948188
  9. [14]Yeung N. Summerfield C. Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and error monitoring Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 367 2012 1310 1321 22492749 PMC3318764
  10. [16]Kaplan J.T. Gimbel S.I. Harris S. Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence Sci. Rep. 6 2016 39589 28008965 PMC5180221
  11. [19]Everett J.A. The 12 item social and economic conservatism scale (SECS) PLoS ONE 8 2013 e82131 24349200 PMC3859575
  12. [22]Altemeyer B. Dogmatic behavior among students: testing a new measure of dogmatism J. Soc. Psychol. 142 2002 713 721 12450346
  13. [25]Eysenck H.J. The psychology of politics 1954 Routledge & Kegan Paul London
  14. [29]Altemeyer B. The authoritarian specter 1996 Harvard University Press
  15. [30]Maniscalco B. Lau H. A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings Conscious. Cogn. 21 2012 422 430 22071269
  16. [32]Moore D.A. Healy P.J. The trouble with overconfidence Psychol. Rev. 115 2008 502 517 18426301
  17. [33]Bronfman Z.Z. Brezis N. Moran R. Tsetsos K. Donner T. Usher M. Decisions reduce sensitivity to subsequent information Proc. R. Soc. B. 282 2015 PMC4590468 26108628
  18. [34]Brehm J.W. Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives J. Abnorm. Psychol. 52 1956 384 389 13318848
  19. [35]Zmigrod L. Rentfrow P.J. Robbins T.W. Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115 2018 E4532 E4540 29674447 PMC5948950
  20. [37]Morales J. Lau H. Fleming S.M. Domain-General and Domain-Specific Patterns of Activity Supporting Metacognition in Human Prefrontal Cortex J. Neurosci. 38 2018 3534 3546 29519851 PMC5895040
  21. [39]De Martino B. Fleming S.M. Garrett N. Dolan R.J. Confidence in value-based choice Nat. Neurosci. 16 2013 105 110 23222911 PMC3786394
  22. [40]Buhrmester M. Kwang T. Gosling S.D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6 2011 3 5 26162106
  23. [44]Rand D.G. The promise of Mechanical Turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments J. Theor. Biol. 299 2012 172 179 21402081
  24. [47]García-Pérez M.A. Forced-choice staircases with fixed step sizes: asymptotic and small-sample properties Vision Res. 38 1998 1861 1881 9797963
  25. [50]Chandler J. Mueller P. Paolacci G. Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers Behav. Res. Methods 46 2014 112 130 23835650
  26. [51]Fleming S.M. HMeta-d: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of metacognitive efficiency from confidence ratings Neurosci. Conscious 1 2017 nix007 PMC5858026 29877507
  27. [52]Jost J.T. Federico C.M. Napier J.L. Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective affinities Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60 2009 307 337 19035826
  28. [54]Kucukelbir A. Ranganath R. Gelman A. Blei D. Automatic variational inference in Stan Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 28 2015 568 576

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rollwage, M., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Rollwage, Max
  • Fleming, Stephen M.
ORCID
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
28
Issue
24
Pages
4014-4021.e8
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053
PMC
PMC6303190
OpenAlex
W2904708780
Cited by
193
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 1
FWCI
38.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z)
  • Royal Society (206648/Z/17/Z)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
metacognition, metacognitive sensitivity, confidence bias, political attitudes, belief certainty, perceptual decision making, belief updating, belief revision, polarization
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adult, Aged, Culture, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Politics, Young Adult

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