In EDS ansehen

Reducing cheap talk? How monetary incentives affect the accuracy of metamemory judgments.

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: Reducing cheap talk? How monetary incentives affect the accuracy of metamemory judgments.
Autoren: Bröder, Arndt1 broeder@uni-mannheim.de, Navarro-Báez, Sofia1,2, Undorf, Monika2
Quelle: Memory & Cognition. Aug2025, Vol. 53 Issue 6, p1725-1737. 13p.
Schlagwörter: *RESEARCH funding, *ENDOWMENTS, *DESCRIPTIVE statistics, *RESEARCH, *QUALITY assurance, COGNITIVE testing, PROMPTS (Psychology), AROUSAL (Physiology), KRUSKAL-Wallis Test, READABILITY (Literary style), LEARNING, CONFIDENCE, MOTIVATION (Psychology), VISUALIZATION, MEMORY, JUDGMENT (Psychology), COMPARATIVE studies
Abstract: The accuracy of metacognitive judgments is rarely incentivized in experiments; hence, it depends on the participants' willingness to invest cognitive resources and respond truthfully. According to arguments promoted in economic research that performance cannot reach its full potential without proper motivation, metacognitive abilities might therefore have been underestimated. In two experiments (N = 128 and N = 129), we explored the impact of incentives on the accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs), memory performance, and cue use in free recall of word lists. We introduced a payoff scheme with 5 cents maximum per judgment to promote the accuracy of predicting recall success while simultaneously discouraging strategic responding in the memory test. Incentivizing JOLs had no effect on memory performance. Metacognitive accuracy in terms of resolution (Kruskal's Gamma) was slightly improved in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2. On the more negative side, the incentives boosted JOLs indiscriminately, producing substantial overconfidence. A deeper analysis including cues like word concreteness, imagery, arousal, frequency, subjective relevance, and font size showed the usual and simultaneous cue effects on JOLs. However, cue effects were largely unaffected in size by incentivizing JOLs. In summary, incentives for accuracy do not improve the resolution of JOLs to an extent that outweighs the large inflation of overconfidence. Based on the current results, one cannot recommend the future use of incentivized studies in the field of metamemory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Memory & Cognition is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Datenbank: Business Source Index
Beschreibung
Abstract:The accuracy of metacognitive judgments is rarely incentivized in experiments; hence, it depends on the participants' willingness to invest cognitive resources and respond truthfully. According to arguments promoted in economic research that performance cannot reach its full potential without proper motivation, metacognitive abilities might therefore have been underestimated. In two experiments (N = 128 and N = 129), we explored the impact of incentives on the accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs), memory performance, and cue use in free recall of word lists. We introduced a payoff scheme with 5 cents maximum per judgment to promote the accuracy of predicting recall success while simultaneously discouraging strategic responding in the memory test. Incentivizing JOLs had no effect on memory performance. Metacognitive accuracy in terms of resolution (Kruskal's Gamma) was slightly improved in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2. On the more negative side, the incentives boosted JOLs indiscriminately, producing substantial overconfidence. A deeper analysis including cues like word concreteness, imagery, arousal, frequency, subjective relevance, and font size showed the usual and simultaneous cue effects on JOLs. However, cue effects were largely unaffected in size by incentivizing JOLs. In summary, incentives for accuracy do not improve the resolution of JOLs to an extent that outweighs the large inflation of overconfidence. Based on the current results, one cannot recommend the future use of incentivized studies in the field of metamemory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:0090502X
DOI:10.3758/s13421-024-01679-5