Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning
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
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?
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].”
From Illusions of reflection: open-ended task reveals systematic failures in Large Language Models' reflective reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as [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).”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
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].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [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].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
Self-evaluation is particularly promising for augmenting GenAI explainability, where it can help increase users' receptiveness to explanations that seek to update their mental models of GenAI systems.
“Self-evaluation is particularly promising for augmenting GenAI explainability, where it can help increase users' receptiveness to explanations that seek to update their mental models of GenAI systems [4,171] (see §4.2.1 for more on explainability).”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
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 [4]
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641 · see citing works
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271 · see citing works
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865 · see citing works
Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 · Cited by 1,468 · see citing works
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Stanovich, K. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001 · Cited by 1,041 · see citing works
The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment.
Ackerman, R. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0035098 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Self-citationUnderstanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing
Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., & Ackerman, R. (2017) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis
Fleming, S. M. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
“…functions, although 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).”
Keding, C., & Meissner, P. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120970 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
The Relation Between Students’ Effort and Monitoring Judgments During Learning: A Meta-analysis
Baars, M., Wijnia, L., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09569-3 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Looking at Mental Effort Appraisals through a Metacognitive Lens: Are they Biased?
Scheiter, K., Ackerman, R., & Hoogerheide, V. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09555-9 · Cited by 63 · 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
Self-citationEffects of different AI-driven Chatbot feedback on learning outcomes and brain activity
Yin, J., Xu, H., Pan, Y., & Hu, Y. (2025) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-025-00311-8 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Weatherhead, S., Salim, F., & Belbasis, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18254
“Meta-reasoning refers to a goal-directed process of monitoring and controlling one’s thoughts, thought processes(i.e., reasoning), while calibrating efforts and strategy in accordance with confidence, updating allocation of effort and resources whilst maintaining constraint fidelity[10].”
InfluentialA Comment On "The Illusion of Thinking": Reframing the Reasoning Cliff as an Agentic Gap
Khan, S., Madhavan, S., & Natarajan, K. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18957
Meta$^n$: Recursive Self-Improvement through Emergent Depth
Kim, Z. M., Lee, Y.-J., Jwa, S., & Kang, D. (2026) · arXiv
“A key component of intelligence is the capacity for meta-reasoning, the ability to step outside one’s own chain of reasoning and arrive at insights that lie beyond it [Russell and Wefald, 1991, Kounios and Beeman, 2014, Ackerman and Thompson, 2017].”
Performance and Metacognition Disconnect when Reasoning in Human-AI Interaction
Fernandes, D., Villa, S., Nicholls, S., Haavisto, O., Buschek, D., Schmidt, A., Kosch, T., Shen, C., & Welsch, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.16708 · Cited by 71
- Authors
- Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A.
- Affiliations
- Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
- University of Saskatchewan (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Thompson, Valerie A.
- ORCID
- Ackerman, Rakefet
- 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