Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false

Metacognitive monitoring is an extremely important ability that predicts a wide range of outcomes. However, do people have insight into their own metacognitive monitoring capacity? This study measured participants' perceived metacognitive monitoring abilities using a novel psychometrically validated questionnaire (Study 1) and then examined how well survey responses aligned with online measures of metacognitive monitoring (resolution, discrimination, sensitivity, efficiency) taken from confidence ratings participants made while performing a perceptual decision-making task and Raven's Progressive Matrices (Study 2). We found a negative correlation between the questionnaire responses and many of the online measures of metacognitive monitoring - those who reported being better at metacognitive monitoring, in fact tended to be worse according to the online metacognitive ratings. This occurred because, in general, high self-perceptions of monitoring ability were, in fact, related to higher confidence and lower cognitive performance. These findings suggest that we may have inaccurate insights into our own metacognitive monitoring capacity and questionnaire-based measures of metacognitive abilities may be problematic as they may represent unrealistic self-perceptions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2025-02-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02621-6
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.35

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false

Kit S. Double
4 citations
Behavior Research Methods
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
6.35
article

Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false

Kit S. Double
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Metacognitive monitoring is an extremely important ability that predicts a wide range of outcomes. However, do people have insight into their own metacognitive monitoring capacity? This study measured participants' perceived metacognitive monitoring abilities using a novel psychometrically validated questionnaire (Study 1) and then examined how well survey responses aligned with online measures of metacognitive monitoring (resolution, discrimination, sensitivity, efficiency) taken from confidence ratings participants made while performing a perceptual decision-making task and Raven's Progressive Matrices (Study 2). We found a negative correlation between the questionnaire responses and many of the online measures of metacognitive monitoring - those who reported being better at metacognitive monitoring, in fact tended to be worse according to the online metacognitive ratings. This occurred because, in general, high self-perceptions of monitoring ability were, in fact, related to higher confidence and lower cognitive performance. These findings suggest that we may have inaccurate insights into our own metacognitive monitoring capacity and questionnaire-based measures of metacognitive abilities may be problematic as they may represent unrealistic self-perceptions.

Behavior Research MethodsVol. 57(3)
The University of Sydney (AU)
University of Sydney, Australian Research Council
Peace, Justice and strong institutions, Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
6.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false — Kit S. Double · Behavior Research Methods (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS