But I Was So Sure! Metacognitive Judgments Are Less Accurate Given Prospectively than Retrospectively
Open accessAbstract
Prospective and retrospective metacognitive judgments have been studied extensively in the field of memory; however, their accuracy has not been systematically compared. Such a comparison is important for studying how metacognitive judgments are formed. Here, we present the results of an experiment aiming to investigate the relation between performance in an anagram task and the accuracy of prospective and retrospective confidence judgments. Participants worked on anagrams and were then asked to respond whether a presented word was the solution. They also rated their confidence, either before or after the response and either before or after seeing the suggested solution. The results showed that although response accuracy always correlated with confidence, this relationship was weaker when metacognitive judgements were given before the response. We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of this finding for studies on metacognition and consciousness.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 sensitivity is often better when confidence judgments are provided after, compared to before, an explicit decision has been made.
“Telltale signs of this effect have been confirmed empirically: Metacognitive sensitivity is often better when confidence judgments are provided after, compared to before, an explicit decision has been made (Pereira et al. 2020, Siedlecka et al. 2016, Wokke et al. 2020)”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Siedlecka et al. 2016
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
Handbook of Metacognition in Education
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009) · doi:10.4324/9780203876428 · Cited by 1,509 · see citing works
Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness
Lau, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.009 · Cited by 869 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This seemsmost obvious in the context of hierarchical models of consciousness (Lau and Rosenthal, 2011; Timmermans et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe neural basis of metacognitive ability
Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0417 · Cited by 747 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Metacognitive Judgments Are Less Accurate Given Prospectively than Retrospectively Marta Siedlecka 1, Borysław Paulewicz 2 and Michał Wierzchoń 1* 1Consciousness Lab, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 2University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Katowice, Poland Prospective and retro…”
BackgroundInfluentialTwo-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence.
Pleskac, T. J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0019737 · Cited by 722 · see citing works
Scheffers, M. K., & Coles, M. G. H. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.1.141 · Cited by 493 · see citing works
Choice Certainty Is Informed by Both Evidence and Decision Time
Kiani, R., Corthell, L., & Shadlen, M. N. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.015 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
Ploran, E. J., Nelson, S. M., Velanova, K., Donaldson, D. I., Petersen, S. E., & Wheeler, M. E. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3522-07.2007 · Cited by 282 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…neurophysiological and behavioral experiments, as well as from modeling, suggesting that metacognitive judgments could be based on evidence unavailable to a type 1 response (Petrusic and Baranski, 2003; Ploran et al., 2007; Resulaj et al., 2009; Hilgenstock et al., 2014; Graziano et al., 2015).”
BackgroundAccounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory
Busey, T. A., Tunnicliff, J., Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (2000) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03210724 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Motor effort alters changes of mind in sensorimotor decision making
Burk, D., Ingram, J. N., Franklin, D. W., Shadlen, M. N., & Wolpert, D. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092681 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Higham, P. A., Perfect, T. J., & Bruno, D. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0013865 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- Bates D. Maechler M. Bolker B. Walker S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1– 48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
- Boldt A. Yeung N. (2015). Shared neural markers of decision confidence and error detection. J. Neurosci. 35, 3478– 3484. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0797-14.2015 25716847 PMC4339357 · DOI · Paper page
- Chua E. F. Schacter D. L. Sperling R. A. (2009). Neural correlates of metamemory: a comparison of feeling-of-knowing and retrospective confidence judgments. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 21, 1751– 1765. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21123 18823230 PMC2709699 · DOI
- Del Cul A. Baillet S. Dehaene S. (2007). Brain dynamics underlying the nonlinear threshold for access to consciousness. PLoS Biol. 5: e260. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050260 17896866 PMC1988856 · DOI · Paper page
- Del Cul A. Dehaene S. Reyes P. Bravo E. Slachevsky A. (2009). Causal role of prefrontal cortex in the threshold for access to consciousness. Brain 132, 2531– 2540. 10.1093/brain/awp111 19433438 · DOI · Paper page
- Dienes Z. Altmann G. T. M. Kwan L. Goode A. (1995). Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically. J. Exp. Psychol. 21, 1322– 1338. 10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1322 · DOI
- Dougherty M. R. Scheck P. Nelson T. O. Narens L. (2005). Using the past to predict the future. Mem. Cogn. 33, 1096– 1115. 10.3758/BF03193216 16496729 · DOI · Paper page
- Dunlosky J. Serra M. J. Matvey G. Rawson K. A. (2005). Second-order judgments about judgments of learning. J. Gen. Psychol. 132, 335– 346. 10.3200/GENP.132.4.335-346 · DOI · Paper page
- Fleming S. M. Maniscalco B. Ko Y. Amendi N. Ro T. Lau H. (2015). Action-specific disruption of perceptual confidence. Psychol. Sci. 26, 89– 98. 10.1177/0956797614557697 25425059 PMC4361353 · DOI
- Graziano M. Parra L. C. Sigman M. (2015). Neural correlates of perceived confidence in a partial report paradigm. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 27, 1090– 1103. 10.1162/jocn_a_00759 25390193 · DOI
- Hart J. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. J. Educ. Psychol. 56, 208– 216. 10.1037/h0022263 5825050 · DOI
- Hilgenstock R. Weiss T. Witte O. W. (2014). You'd better think twice: post-decision perceptual confidence. Neuroimage 99, 323– 331. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.049 24862076 · DOI
- Jachs B. Blanco M. J. Grantham-Hill S. Soto D. (2015). On the independence of visual awareness and metacognition: a signal detection theoretic analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 41, 269– 276. 10.1037/xhp0000026 25665083 · DOI
- Kelley C. M. Lindsay D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. J. Mem. Lang. 32, 1– 24. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1001 · DOI
- Koriat A. Levy-Sadot R. (2000). Conscious and unconscious metacognition: a rejoinder. Conscious. Cogn. 9, 193– 202. 10.1006/ccog.2000.0436 10924238 · DOI
- Koriat A. Ma'ayan H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. J. Mem. Lang. 52, 478– 492. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.001 · DOI
- Mandera P. Keuleers E. Wodniecka Z. Brysbaert M. (2015). Subtlex-pl: subtitle-based word frequency estimates for Polish. Behav. Res. Methods 47, 471– 483. 10.3758/s13428-014-0489-4 24942246 · DOI
- Matvey G. Dunlosky J. Guttentag R. (2001). Fluency of re- trieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): an analytic or nonanalytical basis for JOLs: Mem. Cogn. 29, 222– 233. 10.3758/BF03194916 11352205 · DOI
- Mealor A. D. Dienes Z. (2013). The speed of metacognition: taking time to get to know one's structural knowledge. Conscious. Cogn. 22, 123– 136. 10.1016/j.concog.2012.11.009 23262257 · DOI
- Metcalfe J. (2000). Feelings and judgments of knowing: is there a special noetic state? Conscious. Cogn. 9, 178– 186. 10.1006/ccog.2000.0451 10924236 · DOI
- Metcalfe J. Schwartz B. L. Joaquim S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. J. Exp. Psychol. 19, 851– 561. 10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.851 8345327 · DOI
- Metcalfe J. Son L. K. (2012). Anoetic, noetic, and autonoetic metacognition, in The Foundations of Metacognition, eds Beran M. Brandl J. R. Perner J. Proust J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 289– 301. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646739.003.0019 · DOI
- Norman E. Price M. C. (2015). Measuring consciousness with confidence ratings, in Behavioural Methods in Consciousness Research, ed Overgaard M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 159– 180. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0010 · DOI
- Norman E. Price M. C. Jones E. (2011). Measuring strategic control in artificial grammar learning. Conscious. Cogn. 20, 1920– 1929. 10.1016/j.concog.2011.07.008 21824790 · DOI
- Pannu J. Kaszniak A. Rapcsak S. (2005). Metamemory for faces following frontal lobe damage. J. Inter. Neuropsychol.l Soc. 11, 668– 676. 10.1017/s1355617705050873 16248902 · DOI
- Petrusic W. M. Baranski J. V. (2003). Judging confidence influences decision processing in comparative judgments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10, 177– 183. 10.3758/BF03196482 12747505 · DOI
- Ratcliff R. Starns J. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychol. Rev. 116, 59– 83. 10.1037/a0014086 19159148 PMC2693899 · DOI
- Rausch M. Müller H. J. Zehetleitner M. (2015). Metacognitive sensitivity of subjective reports of decisional confidence and visual experience. Conscious. Cogn. 35, 192– 205. 10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.011 25758187 · DOI
- Resulaj A. Kiani R. Wolpert D. M. Shadlen M. N. (2009). Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature 461, 263– 266. 10.1038/nature08275 19693010 PMC2875179 · DOI · Paper page
- Rounis E. Maniscalco B. Rothwell J. C. Passingham R. E. Lau H. (2010). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness. Cogn. Neurosci. 1, 165– 175. 10.1080/17588921003632529 24168333 · DOI · Paper page
- Sandberg K. Timmermans B. Overgaard M. Cleeremans A. (2010). Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other? Conscious. Cogn. 19, 1069– 1078. 10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013 20133167 · DOI · Paper page
- Schnyer D. M. Verfaellie M. Alexander M. P. LaFleche G. Nicholls L. Kaszniak A. W. (2004). A role for right medial prefontal cortex in accurate feeling-of-knowing judgements: evidence from patients with lesions to frontal cortex. Neuropsychologia 42, 957– 966. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.11.020 14998710 · DOI · Paper page
- Scott R. B. Dienes Z. (2008). The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity. J. Exp. Psychol. 34, 1264– 1288. 10.1037/a0012943 18763904 · DOI
- Scott R. B. Dienes Z. Barrett A. B. Bor D. Seth A. K. (2014). Blind insight metacognitive discrimination despite chance task performance. Psychol. Sci. 25, 2199– 2208. 10.1177/0956797614553944 25384551 PMC4263819 · DOI
- Steinhauser M. Yeung N. (2012). Error awareness as evidence accumulation: effects of speed-accuracy trade-off on error signalling. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6: 240. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00240 22905027 PMC3417303 · DOI · Paper page
- Timmermans B. Cleeremans A. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods, in Behavioural Methods in Consciousness Research, ed Overgaard M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 21– 46.
- Timmermans B. Schilbach L. Pasquali A. Cleeremans A. (2012). Higher order thoughts in action: consciousness as an unconscious re-description process. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 1412– 1423. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0421 22492757 PMC3318767 · DOI
- Vickers D. Lee M. D. (1998). Dynamic models of simple judgments: I. Properties of a self-regulating accumulator module. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol. Life Sci. 2, 169– 194. 10.1023/A:1022371901259 · DOI
- Wessel J. R. Danielmeier C. Ullsperger M. (2011). Error awareness revisited: accumulation of multimodal evidence from central and autonomic nervous systems. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 3021– 3036. 10.1162/jocn.2011.21635 21268673 · DOI · Paper page
- Wierzchoń M. Asanowicz D. Paulewicz B. Cleeremans A. (2012). Subjective measures of consciousness in artificial grammar learning task. Conscious. Cogn. 21, 1141– 1153. 10.1016/j.concog.2012.05.012 22728143 · DOI
- Wierzchoń M. Paulewicz B. Asanowicz D. Timmermans B. Cleeremans A. (2014). Different subjective awareness measures demonstrate the influence of visual identification on perceptual awareness ratings. Conscious. Cogn. 27, 109– 120. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.009 24842312 · DOI
- Van Zandt T. Maldonado-Molina M. M. (2004). Response reversals in recognition memory. J. Exp. Psychol. 30, 1147– 1166. 10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1147 15521795 · DOI
- Yeung N. Summerfield C. (2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and error monitoring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 367, 1310– 1321. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0416 22492749 PMC3318764 · DOI · Paper page
- Zehetleitner M. Rausch M. (2013). Being confident without seeing: what subjective measures of visual consciousness are about. Attention Perception Psychophys. 75, 1406– 1426. 10.3758/s13414-013-0505-2 23868563 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis
Fleming, S. M. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Abnormalities of confidence in psychiatry: an overview and future perspectives
Hoven, M., Lebreton, M., Engelmann, J. B., Denys, D., Luigjes, J., & van Holst, R. J. (2019) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0602-7 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Cleeremans, A., Achoui, D., Beauny, A., Keuninckx, L., Martin, J.-R., Muñoz-Moldes, S., Vuillaume, L., & de Heering, A. (2020) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.011 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Behavioral, Modeling, and Electrophysiological Evidence for Supramodality in Human Metacognition
Faivre, N., Filevich, E., Solovey, G., Kühn, S., & Blanke, O. (2018) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0322-17.2017 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Human VMPFC encodes early signatures of confidence in perceptual decisions
Gherman, S., & Philiastides, M. G. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.38293 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Looking at Mental Effort Appraisals through a Metacognitive Lens: Are they Biased?
Scheiter, K., Ackerman, R., & Hoogerheide, V. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09555-9 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Consensus Goals in the Field of Visual Metacognition
Rahnev, D., Balsdon, T., Charles, L., de Gardelle, V., Denison, R., Desender, K., Faivre, N., Filevich, E., Fleming, S. M., Jehee, J., et al. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221075615 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationAction information contributes to metacognitive decision-making
Wokke, M. E., Achoui, D., & Cleeremans, A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60382-y · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Lee, A. L. F., de Gardelle, V., & Mamassian, P. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01869-7 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Error-related cardiac response as information for visibility judgements
Łukowska, M., Sznajder, M., & Wierzchoń, M. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-19144-0 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Siedlecka, M., Paulewicz, B., & Wierzchoń, M.
- Affiliations
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- Uniwersytet SWPS (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Wierzchoń, Michał
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-02-19
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 218-218
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4759291
- OpenAlex
- W2294911664
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 4.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Narodowe Centrum Nauki (2014/14/M/HS6/00911)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- metacognition, retrospective evaluation, judgment accuracy, anagram task, confidence calibration, consciousness
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
