决策信心校准水平对元认知监控作用的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.03.05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 决策信心是个体对自身决策正确性的主观评价，是对决策过程的元认知体验。决策信心校准指决策信心水平与实际的决策正确率之间的匹配程度，其指标有信心水平和决策正确率的相关系数及Type II信号检测论中的ROC曲线下面积（Aroc）等。已有研究发现进行决策信心评估能够增强对当前或后续决策的元认知监控作用，但目前尚不清楚这种效应是否依赖于个体的决策信心校准水平。本研究通过设置知觉决策后是否进行决策信心评估（有信心评估与无信心评估）两种条件，考察个体决策信心的校准水平（Aroc）对元认知监控作用的影响。结果显示：1）与无信心评估条件相比，有信心评估的决策反应时显著增长，决策正确率显著提高（p<0.005）；2）Aroc与有、无信心评估条件下决策正确率的增加值显著正相关（r=0.25，p=0.034），且高Aroc组的决策正确率增加值显著高于低Aroc组（p<0.05）。结果表明，在知觉决策过程中加入决策信心评估具有增强元认知监控作用的效应，体现为决策时间的增长和决策正确率的提高。并且，这种效应的大小依赖于个体的决策信心校准水平，校准水平越高元认知监控作用越好。

关键词: 决策信心, 决策信心校准, 元认知能力, 元认知监控作用

Abstract: Decision confidence is the subjective evaluation of the correctness of one's own decision-making, and a metacognitive experience of the decision-making process. Decision confidence calibration refers to the association between subjective confidence level and objective decision accuracy, which can be indexed by the correlation coefficient between the confidence level and decision accuracy or the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (Aroc) in Type II signal detection theory. Previous studies have found that prompted decision confidence rating can increase metacognitive monitoring effect on current or subsequent decisions, but it is not clear whether this effect depends on the level of individual decision confidence calibration. This study explored how the decision confidence calibration level (Aroc) would affect the effect of metacognitive monitoring, by setting two conditions: with and without confidence rating after perceptual decision. The results showed that: 1) Compared to decisions without confidence rating, decisions with confidence rating have significantly longer response time and higher accuracy (p<0.005). 2) Aroc value was positively correlation with the increased accuracy (accuracy of decisions with confidence rating minus accuracy of decisions without confidence rating) (r=0.25, p=0.034), and the increased accuracy in the high Aroc group was significantly higher than that in the low Aroc group (p<0.05). These results suggested that prompted confidence rating could enhance the metacognitive monitoring effect, i.e. increase the decision response time and improve the decision accuracy. And, this effect depend on the level of decision confidence calibration, individual with higher decision confidence calibration level showing better monitoring effect.

Key words: decision confidence, decision confidence calibration, metacognitive ability, metacognitive monitoring effect

中图分类号:

B844

雷威, 刘可智, 梁雪梅, 陈晶. 决策信心校准水平对元认知监控作用的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(3): 289-295.

LEI Wei, LIU Kezhi, LIANG Xuemei, CHEN Jing. The Effect of Decision Confidence Calibration Level on Metacognitive Monitoring[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2020, 36(3): 289-295.

参考文献

Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 143(3), 1349-1368.
Baranski, J. V., & Petrusic, W. M. (2001). Testing architectures of the decision-confidence relation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 195-206.
Bolger, F., & Önkal-Atay, D. (2004). The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions. International Journal of Forecasting, 20(1), 29-39.
Chen, J., Feng, T., Shi, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2013). Neural representation of decision confidence. Behavioural brain research, 245, 50-57.
Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature neuroscience, 8(12), 1704-1711.
Denison, R. N., Adler, W. T., Carrasco, M., & Ma, W. J. (2018). Humans incorporate attention-dependent uncertainty into perceptual decisions and confidence. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 115(43), 11090-11095.
Dinsmore, D. L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence judgments made of Students' explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4-14.
Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2017). Are you sure about that? Eliciting confidence ratings may influence performance on Raven's progressive matrices. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(2), 190-206.
Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13(3), 309-326.
Double, K. S., Birney, D. P., & Walker, S. A. (2018). A meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgements of learning. Memory, 26(6), 741-750.
Fleck, M. S., Daselaar, S. M., Dobbins, I. G., & Cabeza, R. (2006). Role of prefrontal and anterior cingulate regions in decision-making processes shared by memory and nonmemory tasks. Cereb Cortex, 16(11), 1623-1630.
Fleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 443.
Fleming, S. M., Weil, R. S., Nagy, Z., Dolan, R. J., & Rees, G. (2010). Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329(5998), 1541-1543.
Hanks, T. D., & Summerfield, C. (2017). Perceptual Decision Making in Rodents, Monkeys, and Humans. Neuron, 93(1), 15-31.
Insabato, A., Pannunzi, M., Rolls, E. T., & Deco, G. (2010). Confidence-Related Decision Making. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 104, 539-547.
Janes, J. L., Rivers, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2018). The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance:Positive, negative, or both? Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(6), 2356-2364.
Kepecs, A., Uchida, N., Zariwala, H. A., & Mainen, Z. F. (2008). Neural correlates, computation and behavioural impact of decision confidence. Nature, 455(7210), 227-231.
Koriat, A. (2012). When Are Two Heads Better than One and Why? Science, 336(6079), 360-362.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1977). Calibration of Probabilities:The State of the Art. In Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs (pp. 275-324). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer.
Meyniel, F., & Dehaene, S. (2017). Brain networks for confidence weighting and hierarchical inference during probabilistic learning. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(19), E3859-E3868.
Mitchum, A. L., & Kelley, C. M. (2010). Solve the problem first:Constructive solution strategies can influence the accuracy of retrospective confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 699-710.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102-116.
Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning. Psychological Science, 5(4), 207-213.
Petrusic, W. M., & Baranski, J. V. (2003). Judging confidence influences decision processing in comparative judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 177-183.
Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning:New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 374-387.
Sahakyan, L., Delaney, P. F., & Kelley, C. M. (2004). Self-evaluation as a moderating factor of strategy change in directed forgetting benefits. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 131-136.
Samaha, J., & Postle, B. R. (2017). Correlated Individual Differences Suggest A Common Mechanism Underlying Metacognition In Visual Perception And Visual Short-Term Memory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 284(1867), 2017-2035.
Schoenherr, J. R., Leth-Steensen, C., & Petrusic, W. M. (2010). Selective attention and subjective confidence calibration. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(2), 353-368.
Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy:A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315-327.
Urai, A. E., Braun, A., & Donner, T. H. (2017). Pupil-linked arousal is driven by decision uncertainty and alters serial choice bias. Nature Communications, 8, 14637.
Vaghi, M. M., Luyckx, F., Sule, A., Fineberg, N. A., Robbins, T. W., & De Martino, B. (2017). Compulsivity Reveals a Novel Dissociation between Action and Confidence. Neuron, 96(2), 348-354.e344.
Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 10(3), 156-172.
Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., et al. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 264-271.

相关文章 15

[1]	林崇德. 需要是教育与发展的动力源[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 1-7.
[2]	冷欣怡, 苏萌萌, 李文玲, 杨秀杰, 邢爱玲, 张湘琳, 舒华. 家庭环境与农村儿童早期语言发展的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 8-18.
[3]	陈书玲, 贾会宾, 靳璨, 张欣, 王恩国. 发展性协调障碍儿童视觉通道前注意加工的特点：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 19-28.
[4]	谢和平, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 邓素娥, 段朝辉. 记忆的生成绘图效应及其边界条件：一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 29-43.
[5]	田惠东, 张玉红, 孙昊翔, 李瑛, 哈尼夏. 师生关系对智力障碍学生同伴交往能力的影响：有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 44-54.
[6]	陈启山, 何静怡. 女大学生室友的愤怒特质匹配与人际关系：有调节的多项式回归模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 55-63.
[7]	王鑫强, 李金文, 卢红燕, 赖正伟, 李佳源. 择偶优劣势对师范大学生教师职业认同的影响：择偶价值感的中介及自尊的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 64-73.
[8]	赵京伟, 陈晓旭, 任立文, 耿喆, 徐夫真. 父母心理控制与小学儿童焦虑：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 93-102.
[9]	秦瑶, 彭运石. 父母教养方式对初中生社交焦虑的影响：同伴接纳和反刍思维的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 103-113.
[10]	魏华, 丁慧敏, 陈武, 郝兴风, 熊婕. 父母低头行为与青少年网络欺负的关系：压力的中介作用与年龄的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 114-121.
[11]	樊香麟, 崔英锦. 客体化身体意识与女大学生限制性饮食行为的关系：外貌负面评价恐惧和社会文化压力的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 122-131.
[12]	张慧如, 张伟达, 傅王倩, 邓敏, 彭苏浩, 李玉. 孤独感对创造性倾向的影响：无聊倾向和焦虑情绪的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 132-141.
[13]	王伊萌, 王振东, 汪凤炎. “当局者迷”破解之道：智慧的正念干预研究——个人成长主动性与反思的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 142-152.
[14]	金星, 刘景弘, 马跃, 于战宇. 聋童和正常儿童身体表情注意瞬脱的比较研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 305-312.
[15]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 语言范畴影响面部表情知觉的电生理学证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 313-322.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed