Cited by 131Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Abilities and TestingInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Is there a G factor for metacognition? Correlations in retrospective metacognitive sensitivity across tasks.

Open access
Mazancieux, Audrey, Fleming, Stephen M., Souchay, Céline, Moulin, Chris J. A.·2020·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

) were significant, even for pairs of tasks in which first-order performance was not correlated. This suggests that at least some components of metacognitive efficiency in retrospective confidence are domain general. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000746

Cites

39 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The accuracy of reflective judgments shares variance with other forms of metacognitive sensitivity rather than variance in IQ.

    “The accuracy of such reflective judgments shares variance with other forms of metacognitive sensitivity rather than variance in IQ (Mazancieux et al. 2020, Rouault et al. 2018a).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Mazancieux et al. 2020

    The Results (Metacognitive Efficiency; page unavailable) report covariance in metacognitive efficiency across five of six task pairings, supporting shared variance in the accuracy of retrospective confidence judgments. The paper says this covariance is unlikely to be an artifact of first-order task performance, but our copy does not report an IQ comparison; that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Metacognitive capacity (measured as the noise in metacognitive judgments relative to performance) covaries across perceptual and cognitive tasks, suggesting a global resource for monitoring self-performance.

    “There is also emerging evidence that metacognitive capacity (measured as the noise in metacognitive judgments relative to performance) covaries across perceptual and cognitive tasks, suggesting the existence of a global resource that is leveraged to monitor self-performance (Boundy-Singer et al. 2023, Mazancieux et al. 2020, Rouault et al. 2018b).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Mazancieux et al. 2020

  • Individual differences in metacognitive efficiency are correlated across distinct task domains, after controlling for correlations in performance.

    “Behaviorally, individual differences in metacognitive efficiency have been shown to be correlated across distinct task domains, after controlling for correlations in performance (Ais et al. 2016, Faivre et al. 2018, Mazancieux et al. 2020, Rouault et al. 2018b).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Mazancieux et al. 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kruschke J. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  2. Nelson T. O., & Narens L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical frame- work and new findings In Bower G. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125– 173). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mazancieux, A., Fleming, S. M., Souchay, C., & Moulin, C. J. A.
Affiliations
  • Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition (FR)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Mazancieux, Audrey
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2020-09
Volume
149
Issue
9
Pages
1788-1799
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W3011402148
Cited by
131
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University Grenoble Alpes
  • Institut Universitaire de France
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
metacognition, metacognitive sensitivity, metacognitive efficiency, domain generality, general intelligence
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Bayes Theorem, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Retrospective Studies, Visual Perception, Young Adult, Executive Function

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