Cited by 32Cognitive Abilities and TestingCultural Differences and ValuesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Identifying cultural differences in metacognition.

Open access
van der Plas, Elisa, Zhang, Shiqi, Dong, Keer, Bang, Dan, Li, Jian, Wright, Nicholas D., Fleming, Stephen M.·2022·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Some aspects of human metacognition, such as the ability to consciously evaluate our beliefs and decisions, are hypothesized to be culturally acquired. However, direct evidence for this claim is lacking. As an initial step toward answering this question, here we examine differences in metacognitive performance between populations matched for occupation (students), income, demographics and general intelligence but drawn from 2 distinct cultural milieus (Beijing, China and London, U.K.). Chinese participants showed more efficient metacognitive evaluation of perceptual decision-making task performance compared to U.K. participants. These differences manifested in boosts to postdecisional processing following error trials, despite no differences in first-order performance. In a second experiment, we directly replicate these findings and show that a metacognitive advantage generalizes to a task that replaces postdecision evidence with equivalent social advice. Together, our results are consistent with a proposal that metacognitive capacity is shaped via sociocultural interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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/xge0001209

Cites

51 of 55 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?

  • Differences between cultures in how these beliefs are acquired may account for findings of cultural differences in confidence and metacognition and in how people process self-related feedback.

    “Differences between cultures in how these beliefs are acquired may account for findings of cultural differences in confidence and metacognition (van der Plas et al. 2022, Yates et al. 1998) and in how people process self-related feedback (Kitayama et al. 1997).”

    From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as van der Plas et al. 2022

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: 6

  1. Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., & Park, H. (2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.84.1. · DOI
  2. Goupil, L., & Kouider, S. (2016b). Behavioral and Neural Indices of Metacognitive Sensitivity in Preverbal Infants. Current Biology : CB, 26(22), 3038-3045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.09.004 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Huang, R, Liu, M, Yao, S. et al. The self-construal Scale: An examination of its reliability and validity among Chinese University Students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology 17, 306-308 (2009).
  4. Nelson, T. O., N., L. (n.d.). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings (Vol. 26). Academic Press.
  5. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus ana- lytic cognition. Psychological Review 108, 291-310 (2001).
  6. Winter, B. Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. arXiv:1308.5499 (2013). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Plas, E., Zhang, S., Dong, K., Bang, D., Li, J., Wright, N. D., & Fleming, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2022-12
Volume
151
Issue
12
Pages
3268-3280
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W4289277887
Cited by
32
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • UCL/PKU
  • Wellcome Trust (203376/2/16/Z, 203147/Z/16/Z)
  • Wellcome Trust/The Royal Society (206648/Z/17/Z)
  • Sponsor name not included (213630/Z/18/Z)
  • Chinese National Science Foundation (31421003; 31871140)
  • UCL/Max Planck Society
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
metacognition, cultural differences, cross-cultural comparison, metacognitive evaluation, perceptual decision making, error trials, sociocultural development
MeSH terms
Metacognition, China, Humans, Intelligence, Students, Task Performance and Analysis

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