The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The comparative psychology of uncertainty monitoring and metacognition
Abstract
Researchers have begun to explore animals' capacities for uncertainty monitoring and metacognition. This exploration could extend the study of animal self-awareness and establish the relationship of self-awareness to other-awareness. It could sharpen descriptions of metacognition in the human literature and suggest the earliest roots of metacognition in human development. We summarize research on uncertainty monitoring by humans, monkeys, and a dolphin within perceptual and metamemory tasks. We extend phylogenetically the search for metacognitive capacities by considering studies that have tested less cognitively sophisticated species. By using the same uncertainty-monitoring paradigms across species, it should be possible to map the phylogenetic distribution of metacognition and illuminate the emergence of mind. We provide a unifying formal description of animals' performances and examine the optimality of their decisional strategies. Finally, we interpret animals' and humans' nearly identical performances psychologically. Low-level, stimulus-based accounts cannot explain the phenomena. The results suggest granting animals a higher-level decision-making process that involves criterion setting using controlled cognitive processes. This conclusion raises the difficult question of animal consciousness. The results show that animals have functional features of or parallels to human conscious cognition. Remaining questions are whether animals also have the phenomenal features that are the feeling/knowing states of human conscious cognition, and whether the present paradigms can be extended to demonstrate that they do. Thus, the comparative study of metacognition potentially grounds the systematic study of animal consciousness.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282 · cited 2×
“…monitoring has been done to explore humans' capacity to recognize uncertainty and to know when they do not know (Brown et al. 1982; Dunlosky & Nelson 1997; Flavell 1979; Koriat 1993; Metcalfe & Shimamura 1994; Nelson 1992, Nelson & Dunlosky 1991; Nelson & Narens 1990; Reder 1996; Schwartz 1994).”
BackgroundThe origins of intelligence in children.
Piaget, J. (1952) · doi:10.1037/11494-000 · Cited by 10,687
Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00076512 · Cited by 8,743
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings
Nelson, T. O. (1990) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60053-5 · Cited by 2,583
How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226218526.001.0001 · Cited by 2,268
Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01230-3 · Cited by 1,299
The frontal lobes are necessary for `theory of mind'
Stuss, D. T. (2001) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/124.2.279 · Cited by 660
A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience
Brown, A. S. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.204 · Cited by 517 · cited 2×
“…on metacognition and uncertainty monitoring has been done to explore humans' capacity to recognize uncertainty and to know when they do not know (Brown et al. 1982; Dunlosky & Nelson 1997; Flavell 1979; Koriat 1993; Metcalfe & Shimamura 1994; Nelson 1992, Nelson & Dunlosky 1991; Nelson & Narens…”
BackgroundRhesus monkeys know when they remember
Hampton, R. R. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.071600998 · Cited by 493
Cited by
The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans?
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x07001975 · Cited by 2,031
Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x08003543 · Cited by 1,174
Neural correlates, computation and behavioural impact of decision confidence
Kepecs, A., Uchida, N., Zariwala, H. A., & Mainen, Z. F. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07200 · Cited by 809
How we know our own minds: The relationship between mindreading and metacognition
Carruthers, P. (2009) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09000545 · Cited by 610
The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence
Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., Dolan, R. J., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2013) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, J. D., Shields, W. E., & Washburn, D. A.
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 317-339
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2042289516
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 6.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The comparative psychology of uncertainty monitoring and metacognition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0140525x03000086
- The paper
- Smith, J. D., Shields, W. E., & Washburn, D. A. (2003). The comparative psychology of uncertainty monitoring and metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x03000086
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.