Cited by 150Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.

Open access
Gilbert, Sam J., Bird, Arabella, Carpenter, Jason M., Fleming, Stephen M., Sachdeva, Chhavi, Tsai, Pei-Chun·2020·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Individuals frequently choose between accomplishing goals using unaided cognitive abilities or offloading cognitive demands onto external tools and resources. For example, in order to remember an upcoming appointment one might rely on unaided memory or create a reminder by setting a smartphone alert. Setting a reminder incurs both a cost (the time/effort to set it up) and a benefit (increased likelihood of remembering). Here we investigate whether individuals weigh such costs/benefits optimally or show systematic biases. In 3 experiments, participants performed a memory task where they could choose between (a) earning a maximum reward for each remembered item, using unaided memory; or (b) earning a lesser amount per item, using external reminders to increase the number remembered. Participants were significantly biased toward using external reminders, even when they had a financial incentive to choose optimally. Individual differences in this bias were stable over time, and predicted by participants' erroneous metacognitive underconfidence in their memory abilities. Bias was eliminated, however, when participants received metacognitive advice about which strategy was likely to maximize performance. Furthermore, we found that metacognitive interventions (manipulation of feedback valence and practice-trial difficulty) yielded shifts in participants' reminder bias that were mediated by shifts in confidence. However, the bias could not be fully attributed to metacognitive error. We conclude that individuals have stable biases toward using external versus internal cognitive resources, which result at least in part from inaccurate metacognitive evaluations. Finding interventions to mitigate these biases can improve individuals' adaptive use of cognitive tools. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000652

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Metacognitive beliefs about one's own cognition explain at least some individual differences in offloading behaviour.

    “Related studies investigating metacognitions in the context of cognitive offloading, however, showed that metacognitive beliefs about one’s own cognition explain at least some individual differences in offloading behaviour (e.g., Gilbert et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2019 but see Grinschgl, Meyerhoff, Schwan, & Papenmeier, 2020).”

    From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Gilbert et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbert, S. J., Bird, A., Carpenter, J. M., Fleming, S. M., Sachdeva, C., & Tsai, P.-C.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2020-03
Volume
149
Issue
3
Pages
501-517
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2970988247
Cited by
150
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5
FWCI
6.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N018621/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
reminders, cognitive offloading, metacognition, metacognitive intervention, memory, cost-benefit decision making, individual differences, feedback valence, effort, cognitive tools
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Adult, Aptitude, Cognition, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Young Adult, 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