Cited by 400Memory Processes and InfluencesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning

Ackerman, Rakefet, Thompson, Valerie A.·2017·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

Meta-Reasoning refers to the processes that monitor the progress of our reasoning and problem-solving activities and regulate the time and effort devoted to them. Monitoring processes are usually experienced as feelings of certainty or uncertainty about how well a process has, or will, unfold. These feelings are based on heuristic cues, which are not necessarily reliable. Nevertheless, we rely on these feelings of (un)certainty to regulate our mental effort. Most metacognitive research has focused on memorization and knowledge retrieval, with little attention paid to more complex processes, such as reasoning and problem solving. In that context, we recently developed a Meta-Reasoning framework, used here to review existing findings, consider their consequences, and frame questions for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Failure to avoid a self-flagged fault indicates that the nested concepts implicated by the task are not being activated relative to the stated goal-a shortfall in functional meta-reasoning.

    “Failure to do so indicates that the nested concepts implicated by the task (e.g., what qualifies an 'original questionnaire item') are not being activated relative to the stated goal-a shortfall in functional meta-reasoning[10].”
  • Metacognition is conceptually and empirically distinct from fluid intelligence.

    “Metacognition is a part of the wider set of human executive functions, although it is conceptually and empirically distinct from fluid intelligence: It is possible (and indeed common) to evaluate the operation of classical executive functions, for instance, reflecting on whether a solution to a logical puzzle was in fact appropriate (Ackerman & Thompson 2017).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Ackerman & Thompson 2017

  • Confidence and its adjustment are central to decision-making and reasoning, especially in many aspects of human-AI interaction.

    “Confidence and its adjustment are central to decision-making and reasoning, especially in many aspects of human-AI interaction [4, 171] ( §3.1, §3.2, and §3.3).”
  • The relative ease with which GenAI can produce extensive output may affect output evaluation and reliance via potentially misleading cues that people implicitly rely on to update their confidence and guide their subsequent metacognitive control.

    “The relative ease with which GenAI can produce extensive output may also affect output evaluation and reliance via potentially misleading cues that people implicitly rely on to update their confidence and guide their subsequent metacognitive control [4].”
  • Metacognition research suggests that increased effort requirements may discourage users from appropriate evaluation.

    “How this will affect users' selfconfidence and AI reliance remains unclear, but metacognition research suggests that increased effort requirements may discourage users from appropriate evaluation [4].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A.
Affiliations
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Corresponding author
Thompson, Valerie A.
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
607-617
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2626857346
Cited by
400
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Israel Science Foundation (957/13)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
meta-reasoning, metacognition, reasoning, problem solving, heuristic cues
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Emotions, Humans, Problem Solving, Thinking

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