The persistence of the fluency-confidence association in problem solving

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1187-1192

  Ackerman, Rakefet ^a   Zalmanov, Hagar ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Fluency; High order cognition; Metamemory; Reaction time analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870194405     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0305-z     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ackerman, R., & Koriat, A. (2011). Response latency as a predictor of the accuracy of children's reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17(4), 406-417.
2. 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.
3. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 136(4), 569-576.
4. Beaman, C. P. (2002). Why are we good at detecting cheaters? A reply to Fodor. Cognition, 83, 215-220.
5. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.), Metacognition and implicit memory (pp. 309-338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, 35(4), 634-639.
7. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106.
8. Evans, J. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two, or many. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33-54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.
10. Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J., & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(5), 1191-1206.
11. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446.
12. Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lecture, 8, 449-489.
13. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157-175.
14. 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. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1-24.
15. Koriat, A. (2008). Subjective confidence in one's answers: The consensuality principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 945-959.
16. Koriat, A., & Ackerman, R. (2010). Choice latency as a cue for children's subjective confidence in the correctness of their answers. Developmental Science, 13(3), 441-453.
17. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs. analytical thinking: Four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 263-278.
18. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463-477.
19. Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Metacognition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238-246.
20. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 26, pp. 125-173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21. Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 416-425.
22. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348.
23. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55-88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107-140.
25. Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Immediate truth-temporal contiguity between a cognitive problem and its solution determines experienced veracity of the solution. Cognition, 114(1), 117-122.
26. Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
27. West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930-941.
28. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.