Cited by 42Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentMemory Processes and InfluencesFace Recognition and Perception

Linking metacognition and mindreading: Evidence from autism and dual-task investigations.

Open access
Nicholson, Toby, Williams, David M., Lind, Sophie E., Grainger, Catherine, Carruthers, Peter·2021·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

secondary task (regardless of whether it required mindreading) would diminish metacognitive accuracy. Finally, in both Experiments 1 and 2, metacognitive accuracy on the explicit task, but not the implicit task, was associated significantly with performance on a measure of mindreading ability. These results suggest that explicit metacognitive tasks (used frequently to measure metacognition in humans) share metarepresentational processing resources with mindreading, whereas implicit tasks (which are claimed by some comparative psychologists to measure metacognition in nonhuman animals) do not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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/xge0000878

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • A secondary mentalizing task (but not another, equivalently demanding task) interferes with explicit metacognitive judgments.

    “In addition, a secondary mentalizing task (but not another, equivalently demanding task) interfered with explicit metacognitive judgments (Nicholson et al. 2021).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Nicholson et al. 2021

    The Experiment 3 Summary reports that the secondary mindreading task impaired explicit judgment-of-confidence accuracy, whereas the non-mindreading control tasks did not. But the General Discussion says the authors could not control for all differences between the tasks and that judging emotion may have been more demanding than judging gender. The claim that the control task was equivalently demanding is therefore unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Perceptual metacognitive sensitivity on a task requiring explicit confidence judgments correlates with mentalizing abilities and is impaired in subjects with autism spectrum disorder.

    “Recently, in an elegant series of studies, Nicholson and colleagues (2021) found that perceptual metacognitive sensitivity on a task requiring explicit confidence judgments (but not, intriguingly, one requiring an implicit gamble of the kind often used in animal metacognition experiments) correlated with mentalizing abilities and was impaired in subjects with autism spectrum disorder.”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Nicholson et al. 2021

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

9 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Baron-Cohen S., Wheelwright S., Spong A., Scahill V., & Lawson J. (2001). Are intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independent? A test with children with Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 5, 47– 78. 10.1017/S0021963001006643 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Carruthers P. (2011). The opacity of mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155– 159. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 19565683 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Goldman A. (2006). Simulating minds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 10.1093/0195138929.001.0001 · DOI
  5. Jeffreys H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  6. Nichols S., & Stich S. (2003). Mindreading. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 10.1093/0198236107.001.0001 · DOI
  7. World Health Organization (1992). International classification of mental and behavioral disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (10th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholson, T., Williams, D. M., Lind, S. E., Grainger, C., & Carruthers, P.
Affiliations
University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Williams, David M.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2021-02
Volume
150
Issue
2
Pages
206-220
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W3025728845
Cited by
42
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/M009890/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
metacognition, theory of mind, autism spectrum disorder, dual-task performance, metacognitive accuracy, comparative cognition
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Autistic Disorder, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests

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