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]	关文军, 胡梦娟, 刘晨. 自闭症儿童父母歧视知觉对群际关系的影响:一个有调节的中介作用模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 854-863.
[2]	李维佳, 胡清芬. 空间再定向任务中心理表征的多样性——来自虚拟现实实验的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 385-394.
[3]	向玲, 范淑娴, 陈家利, 王宝玺. 学习困难青少年认知控制特点研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 410-416.
[4]	侯芬, 伍新春, 邹盛奇, 刘畅, 黄彬彬. 父母教养投入对青少年亲社会行为的影响:亲子依恋的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 417-425.
[5]	阚佳琦, 刘斯漫, 时嘉惠, 闫琦, 郭俊斌, 王争艳. 祖辈共同看护背景下母亲和祖辈将心比心、母子依恋与婴幼儿认知的关系:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 395-402.
[6]	田云龙, 喻承甫, 林霜, 叶诗敏, 张晓琳, 刘毅, 路红, 张卫. 父母体罚、学校参与与青少年网络游戏成瘾:亲子关系的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 461-471.
[7]	李若璇, 朱文龙, 刘红瑞, 姚梅林. 家长教育期望对学业倦怠的影响:家长投入的中介及家庭功能的调节[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 489-496.
[8]	彭源, 朱蕾, 王振宏. 父母情绪表达与青少年问题行为:亲子依恋、孤独感的多重中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 504-512.
[9]	江永强, 邵云天, 蔺秀云, 何先友. 初中生班级团体依恋、自悯与学习倦怠的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 472-480.
[10]	范航, 朱转, 苗灵童, 刘燊, 张林. 父母婚姻冲突对青少年抑郁情绪的影响:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 481-488.
[11]	叶宝娟, 朱黎君, 方小婷, 刘明矾, 王凯凯, 杨强. 压力知觉对大学生抑郁的影响:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 497-503.
[12]	陈庆秋, 徐华, 吴南. 助人情境中幼儿知恩图报意识的发展[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 403-409.
[13]	徐璐璐, 吴佩佩, 贺雯. 贫困大学生元刻板印象威胁对群际关系的影响:群际焦虑的中介和自尊的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 426-433.
[14]	丁子恩, 王笑涵, 刘勤学. 大学生自尊与网络过激行为的关系:社交焦虑和双自我意识的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 171-180.
[15]	刘雪萍, 陈子卓, 黄文, 彭华茂. 成功老化内涵及影响因素分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 249-256.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed