社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.05.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究以词图匹配材料为学习材料，以“大多数人选择的情况”为社会性线索，通过分析行为表现和眼动指标，探讨了社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响。结果显示：（1）第一次信心判断时，外显信心判断显著高估，内隐信心判断较为准确。第二次信心判断时，在线索一致条件下，外显信心判断等级显著高于内隐信心判断。（2）在提供社会性线索阶段和第二次再认阶段，与线索一致条件相比，线索不一致条件下被提示项的注视时间更短，而未提示项的注视时间更长，且个体改变选择的次数显著增多。结果表明：内隐和外显元认知监测存在分离，内隐监测的准确性更高，外显监测受社会性线索的影响更大；而内隐和外显的元认知控制受社会性线索的影响趋同。

关键词: 社会性线索, 外显元认知, 内隐元认知, 眼动

Abstract: This study examined the impact of social cues on explicit and implicit metacognition by analyzing behavior performance and eye movement measurements. The results showed that, in the first judgment, participants significantly overestimated the explicit confidence judgment whereas the implicit confidence judgment was more accurate. In the second judgment, when cues were consistent, explicit confidence judgments were significantly higher than those that were implicit. In the stage of providing social cues and the second recognition stage, compared with the cue-consistent condition, the fixation time of the cued item was shorter under the cue-inconsistent condition, while the fixation time of the uncued item was longer. In conclusion, the accuracy of implicit monitoring is higher than explicit monitoring which is more influenced by social cues, while implicit and explicit metacognitive control are similarly influenced by social cues.

Key words: social cues, explicit metacognition, implicit metacognition, eye movement

中图分类号:

B842

贾宁, 容丽卓, 代景华. 社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 593-599.

JIA Ning, RONG Lizhuo, DAI Jinghua. Effects of Social Cues on Explicit and Implicit Metacognitive Monitoring and Control[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(5): 593-599.

参考文献

贾宁, 容丽卓, 代景华. (2019). 掌握程度和社会性线索对元认知监控的影响. 心理发展与教育, 35(6), 641–647
姜英杰, 王志伟, 郑明玲, 金雪莲. (2016). 基于价值的议程对学习时间分配影响的眼动研究. 心理学报, 48(10), 1229–1238
李伟健, 蔡任娜, 陈海德, 汪磊, 王敏敏. (2013). 不同呈现方式下项目难度与分值对自定步调学习时间的影响. 心理科学, 36(6), 1363–1368
岳阳, 姜英杰, 马林, 王志伟, 于洋. (2018). 眼动追踪在价值导向元记忆研究中的应用. 心理科学, 41(4), 816–821
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235, doi: 10.1177/1088868309341564.
Attali, Y., Budescu, D., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2020). An item response approach to calibration of confidence judgments. Decision, 7(1), 1–19, doi: 10.1037/dec0000111.
Avhustiuk, M. M., Pasichnyk, I. D., & Kalamazh, R. V. (2018). The illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring: Effects of the type of information and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 317–341, doi: 10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418.
Bach, D. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). Knowing how much you don’t know: A neural organization of uncertainty estimates. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(8), 572–586, doi: 10.1038/nrn3289.
Bellon, E., Fias, W., & de Smedt, B. (2020). Metacognition across domains: Is the association between arithmetic and metacognitive monitoring domain-specific. PLoS One, 15(3), e0229932, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229932.
Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015). When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1076–1082.
Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 105–120.
Hebart, M. N., Schriever, Y., Donner, T. H., & Haynes, J. D. (2016). The relationship between perceptual decision variables and confidence in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 26(1), 118–130, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu181.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349.
Koriat, A. (2017). Can people identify “deceptive” or “misleading” items that tend to produce mostly wrong answers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1066–1077, doi: 10.1002/bdm.2024.
Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 34–53.
Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2009). How do I do? Investigating effects of expertise and performance-process records on self-assessment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1256–1265, doi: 10.1002/acp.1528.
Król, M., Kilan-Banach, M., & Strzelecka, R. (2017). The role of stimulus predictability in the allocation of attentional resources: An eye-tracking study. Cognitive Processing, 18(3), 335–342, doi: 10.1007/s10339-017-0806-9.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173.
Nicolle, A., Bach, D. R., Frith, C., & Dolan, R. J. (2011). Amygdala involvement in self-blame regret. Social Neuroscience, 6(2), 178–189, doi: 10.1080/17470919.2010.506128.
Pescetelli, N., Rees, G., & Bahrami, B. (2016). The perceptual and social components of metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 949–965, doi: 10.1037/xge0000180.
Robey, A. M., Dougherty, M. R., & Buttaccio, D. R. (2017). Making retrospective confidence judgments improves learners’ ability to decide what not to study. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1683–1693, doi: 10.1177/0956797617718800.
Roderer, T., & Roebers, C. M. (2010). Explicit and implicit confidence judgments and developmental differences in metamemory: An eye-tracking approach. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 229–250, doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9059-z.
Roderer, T., & Roebers, C. M. (2014). Can you see me thinking (about my answers)? Using eye-tracking to illuminate developmental differences in monitoring and control skills and their relation to performance. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 1–23, doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9109-4.
Sanchez, C., & Dunning, D. (2018). Overconfidence among beginners: Is a little learning a dangerous thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 10–28, doi: 10.1037/pspa0000102.
Yaniv, I., & Milyavsky, M. (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 104–120, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006.

[1]	李士一, 谢岩枫, 赵光, 白学军. 媒体多任务经验对不同注意模式下内隐记忆的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 433-440.
[2]	张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 边菡, 李芳, 张志超, 臧传丽. 中文阅读中快速读者与慢速读者的词频效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 304-310.
[3]	何立媛, 赵星, 白玉, 刘妮娜. 汉语老年读者的多词单元加工：来自眼动研究的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 160-166.
[4]	秦钊, 王影超, 叶佳滢, 袁小源, 闫国利. 聋人句子阅读中的视觉功能补偿现象：副中央凹−中央凹效应的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 167-173.
[5]	顾俊娟, 高志华, 马绍扬. 嵌套词汉字位置加工的亚词边界效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 1-7.
[6]	赵赛男, 李琳, 张俐娟, 王敬欣. 汉语阅读中高限制性语境对不可预测词加工的影响：眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[7]	刘璐, 姜雅梅, 张巧明, 李诸洋. 义符位置与语义透明度对形声字语义激活的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 585-591.
[8]	李赛男, 闫国利, 王亚丽, 刘敏, 赵淑萍. 一年级小学生阅读知觉广度的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 606-611.
[9]	张苏媛, 兰泽波, 张水, 孟珠, 闫国利. 无关言语对一年级小学生阅读影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 433-438,446.
[10]	高晓雷, 沈梦, 任晓飞, 白学军, 高蕾. 高、低汉语水平藏–汉读者汉语阅读知觉广度及预视效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 297-303,333.
[11]	贺斐, 梁菲菲, 白学军. 汉语阅读伴随词汇学习的形旁类别一致性效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 304-311.
[12]	康立超, 兰泽波, 韩映虹. 不同阅读方式下图画书重复阅读对4～5岁幼儿文字关注影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 368-374.
[13]	何立媛, 田雪, 李悦, 沈凤丹, 王永胜, 吴捷. 无关言语影响老年人阅读过程的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 375-381.
[14]	乌仁其木格, 赵傲雪, 汪钰涵, 庄想灵, 马国杰. “找茬”任务中的视野偏好与参照策略[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 166-171.
[15]	王永胜, 罗雨娇, 韩洋, 刘妮娜, 李馨, 白学军. 语境线索在留学生阅读伴随词汇学习中的作用：来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(5): 618-623,651.