Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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
Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying subjective valuation of effort costs
Chong, T. T.-J., Apps, M., Giehl, K., Sillence, A., Grima, L. L., & Husain, M. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002598 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.461 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How Local and Global Metacognition Shape Mental Health
Seow, T. X. F., Rouault, M., Gillan, C. M., & Fleming, S. M. (2021) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.05.013 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Self-citationConsequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory
Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., & Meyerhoff, H. S. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211008060 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Confidence guides spontaneous cognitive offloading
Boldt, A., & Gilbert, S. J. (2019) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0195-y · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Self-citationOutsourcing Memory to External Tools: A Review of ‘Intention Offloading’
Gilbert, S. J., Boldt, A., Sachdeva, C., Scarampi, C., & Tsai, P.-C. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02139-4 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Self-citationExcessive use of reminders: Metacognition and effort-minimisation in cognitive offloading
Sachdeva, C., & Gilbert, S. J. (2020) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2020.103024 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citationChildren Devise and Selectively Use Tools to Offload Cognition
Bulley, A., McCarthy, T., Gilbert, S. J., Suddendorf, T., & Redshaw, J. (2020) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.035 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Self-citationProblem Solvers Adjust Cognitive Offloading Based on Performance Goals
Weis, P. P., & Wiese, E. (2019) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12802 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Harder Than You Think: How Outside Assistance Leads to Overconfidence
Fisher, M., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2021) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620975779 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Hybrid social learning in human-algorithm cultural transmission
Brinkmann, L., Gezerli, D., Kleist, K. V., Müller, T. F., Rahwan, I., & Pescetelli, N. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0426 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Finley, J. R., & Naaz, F. (2023) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2022.2126858 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Common computations for metacognition and meta-metacognition
Zheng, Y., Recht, S., & Rahnev, D. (2023) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niad023 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Sun, J., Wang, Y., Hu, Z., Liu, Y., & Sun, Y. (2025) · British Journal of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12540 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Seung, Y., & Basham, J. D. (2026) · Learning Disability Quarterly · doi:10.1177/07319487261439132 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Impact of Generative AI on Self-Regulated Learning and Cognitive Offloading
Lindo, M. R., & Cutad, C. A. (2024) · IMCC Journal of Science · doi:10.65931/c7k2p5z9 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Alamri, J. M., & Alhalafawy, W. S. (2026) · International Journal of Technology in Education · doi:10.46328/ijte.8779
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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