Метакогнитивный мониторинг и контроль в ситуации распределенного познания
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu16.2023.303Аннотация
Современный мир характеризуется непрерывным расширением спектра доступной информации, возможностей коммуникации с другими людьми с помощью различных технологий, повышением мультизадачности. В итоге когнитивная активность современного человека часто носит распределенный характер, то есть опирается на использование внешних ресурсов и устройств, а также привлечение других людей. В связи с этим важное значение приобретает развитие метакогнитивных знаний и стратегий, которые бы позволяли эффективно использовать не только собственные когнитивные возможности, но и те, что стали доступны благодаря культуре и технологиям. Цель данной обзорной статьи — анализ и описание специфики метакогнитивного мониторинга и контроля в контексте распределенного познания. В статье рассматриваются основные подходы к объяснению способов формирования метакогнитивных оценок, а также эмпирические работы, свидетельствующие о включенности данных оценок в регуляцию процессов решения когнитивных задач. Особый акцент сделан на роли метакогнитивных переживаний в профилактике и коррекции когнитивных ошибок в контексте совместного и распределенного познания. Показано, что метакогнитивные переживания и основанные на них суждения участвуют в построении представлений о собственной компетентности и способности решить поставленную задачу здесь и сейчас; регулируют запуск и остановку поиска информации, являются триггером когнитивной разгрузки, обращения за помощью и принятия советов из внешних источников; участвуют в формировании представлений о компетентности другого, чьи советы могут быть использованы для повышения собственной эффективности (в том числе для социальной верификации знаний); используются в качестве эвристики при принятии совместных решений.
Ключевые слова:
метакогниции, метакогнитивные переживания, распределенное познание, когнитивная разгрузка, дилемма исследования/использования, эпистемическое доверие, эвристика уверенности
Скачивания
Данные скачивания пока недоступны.
Библиографические ссылки
Литература
Аллахвердов В. М. Опыт теоретической психологии (в жанре научной революции). СПб.: Печатный двор, 1993.
Бандура А. Теория социального научения. СПб.: Евразия, 2000.
Выготский Л. С. Собрание сочинений: в 6 т. Т. 6. Научное наследство. М.: Педагогика, 1984.
Гершкович В. А., Морошкина Н. В., Науменко О. В., Аллахвердов В. М. Социальная верификация гипотез при решении задач высокой степени неопределенности // Экспериментальная психология в России: традиции и перспективы. М.: Институт психологии РАН, 2010. С. 372–376.
Морошкина Н. В., Иванчей И. И., Карпов А. Д. Имплицитное научение // Избранные разделы психологии научения / ред. В. Ф. Спиридонов. М.: Издательский дом «Дело» РАНХиГС, 2017. С. 223–275.
Нездоймышапко Л. А., Тихонов Р. В. Роль согласованности ответов при формировании доверия к советам от человека и искусственного интеллекта // Психология познания: материалы Всероссийской научной конференции. ЯрГУ (16–17 декабря 2022 г.) / под ред. И. Ю. Владимирова, С. Ю. Коровкина. Ярославль: Филигрань, 2023. С. 230–234.
Тихонов Р. В. Социальная верификация имплицитных знаний: дис. … канд. психол. наук. СПб., 2020.
Тихонов Р. В., Аммалайнен А. В., Морошкина Н. В. Многообразие метакогнитивных чувств: разные феномены или разные термины? // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология. 2018. № 8 (3). С. 214–242. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu16.2018.302
Тихонов Р. В., Овчинникова И. В. Роль социального взаимодействия в процессах научения // Петербургский психологический журнал. 2016. № 17. С. 172–186. https://ppj.spbpo.ru/psy/article/view/138 (дата обращения: 16.04.2023).
Фомин А. Е. Метакогнитивный мониторинг решения учебных задач: механизмы и искажения. Калуга: КГУ им. К. Э. Циолковского, 2015.
Четвериков А. А., Одайник А. С. Модели субъективной оценки эффективности решения когнитивных задач. Ч. 1. Теории дополнительной оценки и теории частичного доступа // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Сер. 16. Психология. Педагогика. 2013. № 3. С. 55–61.
Четвериков А. А., Одайник А. С. Модели субъективной оценки эффективности решения когнитивных задач. Ч. 2. Теории косвенной оценки // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Сер. 12. Психология. Социология. Педагогика. 2014. № 1. С. 117–125.
Шендяпин В. М., Барабанщиков В. А., Скотникова И. Г. Уверенность в решении: моделирование и экспериментальная проверка // Экспериментальная психология. 2010. № 3 (1). С. 30–57. https://psyjournals.ru/journals/exppsy/archive/2010_n1/28611 (дата обращения: 16.04.2023).
Ackerman R. The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment // Journal of experimental psychology: General. 2014. Vol. 143 (3). P. 1349–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035098
Ackerman R. Heuristic cues for meta-reasoning judgments: Review and methodology // Psychological Topics. 2019. Vol. 28 (1). P. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.1
Ackerman R., Thompson V. Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2017. Vol. 21 (8). P. 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
Alter A., Oppenheimer D. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation // Personality and social psychology review. 2009. Vol. 13 (3). P. 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
Bahrami B., Olsen K., Latham P., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C. Optimally interacting minds // Science. 2010. Vol. 329 (5995). P. 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change // Psychological review. 1977. Vol. 84 (2). P. 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bang D., Fusaroli R., Tylén K., Olsen K., Latham P. E., Lau J. Y. F., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C. D., Bahrami B. Does interaction matter? Testing whether a confidence heuristic can replace interaction in collective decision-making // Consciousness and Cognition. 2014. Vol. 26. P. 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.002
Boldt A., Blundell C., De Martino B. Confidence modulates exploration and exploitation in value-based learning // Neuroscience of consciousness. 2019. Vol. 2019 (1). https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niz004
Bröder A., Newell B. R. Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor // Judgment and Decision Making. 2008. Vol. 3 (3). P. 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002412
Carlebach N., Yeung N. Flexible use of confidence to guide advice requests // Cognition. 2023. Vol. 230. P. 105264.
Carruthers P. Mindreading underlies metacognition // Behavioral and brain sciences. 2009. Vol. 32 (2). P. 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000831
Carruthers P., Williams D. M. Model-free metacognition // Cognition. 2022. Vol. 225. P. 105117.
Cleeremans A. Connecting conscious and unconscious processing // Cognitive science. 2014. Vol. 38 (6). P. 1286–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12149
Cohen J. D., McClure S. M., Yu A. J. Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2007. Vol. 362 (1481). P. 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2098
Desender K., Boldt A., Yeung N. Subjective confidence predicts information seeking in decision making // Psychological science. 2018. Vol. 29 (5). P. 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744771
Echterhoff G., Higgins E. T., Kopietz R., Groll S. How communication goals determine when audience tuning biases memory // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2008. Vol. 137 (1). P. 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.3
Echterhoff G., Higgins E. T., Levine J. M. Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009. Vol. 4. (5). P. 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x
Efklides A. Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? // Educational Research Review. 2006. Vol. 1 (1). P. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001
Efklides A. Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation // Trends and prospects in motivation research / A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, R. M. Sorrentino, eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. P. 297–323.
Ferguson A. M., McLean D., Risko E. F. Answers at your fingertips: Access to the Internet influences willingness to answer questions // Consciousness and Cognition. 2015. Vol. 37. P. 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.08.008
Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes // Human Relations. 1954. Vol. 7 (2). P. 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fisher M., Goddu M. K., Keil F. C. Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2015. Vol. 144 (3). P. 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000070
Flavell J. Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world // International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2000. Vol. 24 (1). P. 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500383421
Flavell J. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry // American Psychologist. 1979. Vol. 34 (10) P. 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flavell J. H. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving // The nature of intelligence / L. B. Resnick, ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1976. P. 231–235.
Fleming S., Daw N. Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation // Psychological review. 2017. Vol. 124 (1). P. 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000045
Fleming S., Lau H. How to measure metacognition // Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2014. Vol. 8. P. 443.
Fourneret P., Jeannerod M. Limited conscious monitoring of motor performance in normal subjects // Neuropsychologia. 1998. Vol. 36 (11). P. 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00006-2
Frith C. The role of metacognition in human social interactions // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2012. Vol. 367 (1599). P. 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U., Kleinbolting H. Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence // Psychological Review. 1991. Vol. 98 (4). P. 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506
Goldsmith M. Metacognitive quality-control processes in memory retrieval and reporting // The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory / J. Dunlosky, S. K. Tauber, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. P. 357–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.28
Grinschgl S., Papenmeier F., Meyerhoff H. Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory // Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2021. Vol. 74 (9). P. 1477–1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211008060
Hart J. Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience // Journal of Educational Psychology. 1965. Vol. 56 (4). P. 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022263
Hanks T., Mazurek M., Kiani R., Hopp E., Shadlen M. Elapsed decision time affects the weighting of prior probability in a perceptual decision task // Journal of Neuroscience. 2011. Vol. 31 (17). P. 6339–6352. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI. 5613-10.2011
Heyes C. Cognitive Gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2018.
Heyes C., Bang D., Shea N., Frith C. D., Fleming S. M. Knowing ourselves together: The cultural origins of metacognition // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2020. Vol. 24 (5). P. 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.007
Hu X., Luo L., Fleming S. M. A role for metamemory in cognitive offloading // Cognition. 2019. Vol. 193. P. 104012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104012
Hutchins E. The social organization of distributed cognition // Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition / L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, S. D. Teasley, eds. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1991. P. 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-012
Jost J., Kruglanski A., Nelson T. Social metacognition: An expansionist review // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1998. Vol. 2 (2). P. 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_6
Kinder A., Shanks D. R., Cock J., Tunney R. J. Recollection, fluency, and the explicit/implicit distinction in artificial grammar learning // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2003. Vol. 132 (4). P. 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.551
Koriat A. Metacognition and consciousness // The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness / P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, E. Thompson, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. P. 289–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816789.012
Koriat A. Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning // Journal of experimental psychology: General. 1997. Vol. 126 (4). P. 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Koriat A. Metamemory: The feeling of knowing and its vagaries // Advances in psychological science. Vol. 2. Biological and cognitive aspects / M. Sabourin, F. Craik, M. Robert, eds. Erlbaum: Taylor & Francis, 1998. P. 461–479.
Koriat A. The self-consistency model of subjective confidence // Psychological Review. 2012a. Vol. 119 (1). P. 80–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025648
Koriat A. When are two heads better than one and why? // Science. 2012b. Vol. 336 (6079). P. 360–362. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216549
Koriat A., Ma’ayan H., Nussinson R. The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2006. Vol. 135 (1). P. 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
Krueger K. The impact of another person’s responses to opinion communication: shared reality, epistemic trust, and belief certainty: Master’s thesis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2017.
Kruger J., Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999. Vol. 77 (6). P. 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Lebuda I., Benedek M. A systematic framework of creative metacognition: preprint // PsyArxiv. 2023. https://psyarxiv.com/s793q (дата обращения: 16.04.2023).
Moran R., Teodorescu A. R., Usher M. Post choice information integration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account // Cognitive psychology. 2015. Vol. 78. P. 99–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.002
Nelson T., Narens L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings // The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 1990. Vol. 26. P. 125–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
Newell B. R., Shanks D. R. Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing “one-reason” decision making // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2003. Vol. 29 (1). P. 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.53
Pescetelli N., Hauperich A. K., Yeung N. Confidence, advice seeking and changes of mind in decision making // Cognition. 2021. Vol. 215. P. 104810.
Pescetelli N., Yeung N. The role of decision confidence in advice-taking and trust formation // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2021. Vol. 150 (3). P. 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000960
Pulford B. D., Colman A. M., Buabang E. K., Krockow E. M. The persuasive power of knowledge: Testing the confidence heuristic // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2018. Vol. 147 (10). P. 1431–1444. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000471
Rahnev D., Koizumi A., McCurdy L., D’Esposito M., Lau H. Confidence leak in perceptual decision making // Psychological science. 2015. Vol. 26 (11). P. 1664–1680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615595037
Reber R., Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth // Consciousness and Cognition. 1999. Vol. 8 (3). P. 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? // Personality and social psychology review. 2004. Vol. 8 (4). P. 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Risko E. F., Gilbert S. J. Cognitive offloading // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2016. Vol. 20 (9). P. 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Schulz L., Fleming S. M., Dayan P. Metacognitive computations for information search: Confidence in control // Psychological Review. 2023. Vol. 130 (3). P. 604–639.
Schwartz B. Sparkling at the end of the tongue: The etiology of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenology // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1999. Vol. 6. P. 379–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210827
Schwarz N., Clore G. L. Feelings and phenomenal experiences // Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles / A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins, eds. New York: The Guilford Press, 2007. P. 385–407.
Shea N., Boldt A., Bang D., Yeung N., Heyes C., Frith C. Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2014. Vol. 18 (4). P. 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006
Shekhar M., Rahnev D. Sources of metacognitive inefficiency // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2021. Vol. 25 (1). P. 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.007
Sloman S. A., Rabb N. Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge // Psychological science. 2016. Vol. 27 (11). P. 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616662271
Sparrow B., Liu J., Wegner D. Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips // Science. 2011. Vol. 333 (6043). P. 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
Storm B. C., Soares J. S. Memory in the digital age: preprint. 2022. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h8q6e
Tikhonov R., Moroshkina N. The social verification of implicit knowledge in dyads: The mediating role of confidence // Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2023. No. 35 (5). P. 578–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2220924
Undorf M., Livneh I., Ackerman R. Metacognitive control processes in question answering: help seeking and withholding answers // Metacognition and Learning. 2021. Vol. 16 (2). P. 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09259-7
Whittlesea B. W. A., Jacoby L., Girard K. Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality // Journal of Memory and Language. 1990. Vol. 29 (6). P. 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2
Whittlesea B. W. A., Price J. R. Implicit/explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: Rethinking the mere exposure effect // Memory & Cognition. 2001. Vol. 29 (2). P. 234–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194917
Zhang J., Patel V. L. Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance // Pragmatics & Cognition. 2006. Vol. 14 (2) P. 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.12zha
Zylberberg A., Barttfeld P., Sigman M. The construction of confidence in a perceptual decision // Frontiers in integrative neuroscience. 2012. Vol. 6. P. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00079
References
Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 143 (3), 1349–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035098
Ackerman, R. (2019). Heuristic cues for meta-reasoning judgments: Review and methodology. Psychological Topics, 28 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.1
Ackerman, R., Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21 (8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
Allakhverdov, V. M. (1993). The experience of theoretical psychology (in the genre of scientific revolution ). St. Petersburg, Pechatnyi dvor Publ. (In Russian)
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329 (5995), 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84 (2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X. 84.2.191
Bandura, A. (2000). Social Learning Theory . St. Petersburg, Evraziia Publ. (In Russian).
Bang, D., Fusaroli, R., Tylén, K., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Lau, J. Y. F., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., Bahrami, B. (2014). Does interaction matter? Testing whether a confidence heuristic can replace interaction in collective decision-making. Consciousness and cognition, 26, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.002
Boldt, A., Blundell, C., De Martino, B. (2019). Confidence modulates exploration and exploitation in value-based learning. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2019 (1), 004. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niz004
Bröder, A., Newell, B. R. (2008). Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor. Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (3), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002412
Carlebach, N., Yeung, N. (2023). Flexible use of confidence to guide advice requests. Cognition, 230, 105264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105264
Carruthers, P. (2009). Mindreading underlies metacognition. Behavioral and brain sciences, 32 (2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000831
Carruthers, P., Williams, D. M. (2022). Model-free metacognition. Cognition, 225, 105117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105117
Chetverikov, A. A., Odainik, A. S. (2013). Models of subjective evaluation of performance in cognitive tasks. Part 1. Theories of additional evaluation and partial access theories. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 3, 55–61. (In Russian)
Chetverikov, A. A., Odainik, A. S. (2014). Models of subjective evaluation of performance in cognitive tasks. Part 2. Inferential theories. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 1, 117–125. (In Russian)
Cleeremans, A. (2014). Connecting conscious and unconscious processing. Cognitive science, 38 (6), 1286–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12149
Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., Yu, A. J. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362 (1481), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2098
Desender, K., Boldt, A., Yeung, N. (2018). Subjective confidence predicts information seeking in decision making. Psychological science, 29 (5), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744771
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., Kopietz, R., Groll, S. (2008). How communication goals determine when audience tuning biases memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.3
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (5), 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x
Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving. In: A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, R. M. Sorrentino (eds.). Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297–323). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publ.
Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational research review, 1 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001
Ferguson, A. M., McLean, D., Risko, E. F. (2015). Answers at your fingertips: Access to the Internet influences willingness to answer questions. Consciousness and cognition, 37, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.08.008
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7 (2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 144 (3), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000070
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: L. B. Resnick (ed.). The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X. 34.10.906
Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International journal of behavioral development, 24 (1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500383421
Fleming, S. M., Daw, N. D. (2017). Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation. Psychological review, 124 (1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000045
Fleming, S. M., Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443
Fomin, A. E. (2015) Metacognitive Monitoring of Learning Problem Solving: Mechanisms and Biases. Kaluga: KGU im. K. E. Tsiolkovskogo Press. (In Russian)
Fourneret, P., Jeannerod, M. (1998). Limited conscious monitoring of motor performance in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 36 (11), 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00006-2
Frith, C. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367 (1599), 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
Gershkovich, V. A., Moroshkina, N. V., Naumenko, O. V., Allakhverdov, V. M. (2010). Social verification of hypotheses in solving problems with a high degree of uncertainty. Eksperimental’naia psikhologiia v Rossii: traditsii i perspektivy (pp. 372–376). Мoscow, Institute of Psychology RAS Press. (In Russian)
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological review, 98 (4), 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506
Goldsmith, M. (2016). Metacognitive quality-control processes in memory retrieval and reporting. In: J. Dunlosky, S. K. Tauber (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory (pp. 357–385). Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.28
Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., Meyerhoff, H. S. (2021). Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74 (9), 1477–1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211008060
Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56 (4), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022263
Hanks, T. D., Mazurek, M. E., Kiani, R., Hopp, E., Shadlen, M. N. (2011). Elapsed decision time affects the weighting of prior probability in a perceptual decision task. Journal of Neuroscience, 31 (17), 6339–6352. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5613-10.2011
Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674985155
Heyes, C., Bang, D., Shea, N., Frith, C. D., Fleming, S. M. (2020). Knowing ourselves together: The cultural origins of metacognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 24 (5), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.007
Hu, X., Luo, L., Fleming, S. M. (2019). A role for metamemory in cognitive offloading. Cognition, 193, 104012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104012
Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In: L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, S. D. Teasley (eds). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-012
Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_6
Kinder, A., Shanks, D. R., Cock, J., Tunney, R. J. (2003). Recollection, fluency, and the explicit/implicit distinction in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132 (4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.551
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Koriat, A. (1998). Metamemory: The feeling of knowing and its vagaries. In: M. Sabourin, F. Craik, M. Robert (eds.). Advances in Psychological Science. Vol. 2. Biological and cognitive aspects (pp. 461–479). Erlbaum, Taylor & Francis.
Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In: P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, E. Thompson (eds). The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816789.012
Koriat, A. (2012a). The self-consistency model of subjective confidence. Psychological Review, 119 (1), 80–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025648
Koriat, A. (2012b). When are two heads better than one and why? Science, 336 (6079), 360–362. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216549
Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 135 (1), 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
Krueger, K. (2017). The impact of another person’s responses to opinion communication: shared reality, epistemic trust, and belief certainty. Master’s thesis. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh.
Kruger, J., Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77 (6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Lebuda, I., Benedek, M. (2023). A systematic framework of creative metacognition. PsyArXiv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/s793q (accessed: 16.04.2023).
Moran, R., Teodorescu, A. R., Usher, M. (2015). Post choice information integration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account. Cognitive psychology, 78, 99–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.002
Moroshkina, N. V., Ivanchei, I. I., Karpov, A. D. (2017). Implicit Learning. In: V. F. Spiridonov (ed.). Izbrannye razdely psikhologii naucheniia (pp. 223–275). Moscow, Delo Publ. of RANEPA. (In Russian)
Nelson, T. O., Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of learning and motivation, 26, 125–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
Newell, B. R., Shanks, D. R. (2003). Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing “one-reason” decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29 (1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.53
Nezdoimyshapko, L. A., Tikhonov, R. V. (2023). The role of response consonance in trust building in advice from humans and artificial intelligence [Paper presentation]. In: I. Yu. Vladimirov, S. Yu. Korovkin (eds). Psikhologiia poznaniia: materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii YarGU (16–17 December 2022) (pp. 230–234). Yaroslavl’: Filigran’ Publ. (In Russian)
Pescetelli, N., Hauperich, A. K., Yeung, N. (2021). Confidence, advice seeking and changes of mind in decision making. Cognition, 215, 104810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104810
Pescetelli, N., Yeung, N. (2021). The role of decision confidence in advice-taking and trust formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150 (3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000960
Pulford, B. D., Colman, A. M., Buabang, E. K., Krockow, E. M. (2018). The persuasive power of knowledge: Testing the confidence heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147 (10), 1431–1444. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000471
Rahnev, D., Koizumi, A., McCurdy, L. Y., D’Esposito, M., Lau, H. (2015). Confidence leak in perceptual decision making. Psychological Science, 26 (11), 1664–1680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615595037
Reber, R., Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8 (3), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Risko, E. F., Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20 (9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
Schulz, L., Fleming, S. M., Dayan, P. (2023). Metacognitive computations for information search: Confidence in control. Psychological Review, 130 (3), 604–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000401
Schwartz, B. L. (1999). Sparkling at the end of the tongue: The etiology of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210827
Schwarz, N., Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In: A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins (eds). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 385–407). New York, The Guilford Press.
Shea, N., Boldt, A., Bang, D., Yeung, N., Heyes, C., Frith, C. D. (2014). Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (4), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006
Shekhar, M., Rahnev, D. (2021). Sources of metacognitive inefficiency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25 (1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.007
Shendyapin, V. M., Barabanschikov, V. A., Skotnikova, I. G. (2010). Confidence in decision: modeling and experimental verification. Experimental Psychology, 3 (1), 30–57. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/journals/exppsy/archive/2010_n1/28611 (accessed: 16.04.2023). (In Russian)
Sloman, S. A., Rabb, N. (2016). Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge. Psychological science, 27 (11), 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616662271
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333 (6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
Storm, B. C., Soares, J. S. (2022). Memory in the digital age: preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h8q6e
Tikhonov, R. V. (2020). Social verification of implicit knowledge. PhD dissertation (Psychology). St. Petersburg. (In Russian)
Tikhonov, R. V., Ammalainen, A. V., Moroshkina N. V. (2018). The variety of metacognitive feelings: Different phenomena or different terms? Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 8 (3), 214–242. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu16.2018.302 (In Russian)
Tikhonov, R. V., Ovchinnikova, I. V. (2016). Role of social interaction in learning processes. Peterburgskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 17, 172–186. Available at: https://ppj.spbpo.ru/psy/article/view/138 (accessed: 16.04.2023). (In Russian)
Tikhonov, R., Moroshkina, N. (2023) The social verification of implicit knowledge in dyads: The mediating role of confidence. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35 (5), 578–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2220924
Undorf, M., Livneh, I., Ackerman, R. (2021). Metacognitive control processes in question answering: help seeking and withholding answers. Metacognition and Learning, 16 (2), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09259-7
Vygotskii, L. S. (1984). Collected opuses: in 6 vols. Vol. 6. Scientific heritage. Moscow, Pedagogika Publ. (In Russian)
Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29 (6), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2
Whittlesea, B. W., Price, J. R. (2001). Implicit/explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: Rethinking the mere exposure effect. Memory & Cognition, 29 (2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194917
Zhang, J., Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14 (2), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.12zha
Zylberberg, A., Barttfeld, P., Sigman, M. (2012). The construction of confidence in a perceptual decision. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 6, 79. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00079
Загрузки
Опубликован
05.09.2023
Как цитировать
Морошкина, Н., Зверев, И., Нездоймышапко, Л., & Тихонов, Р. (2023). Метакогнитивный мониторинг и контроль в ситуации распределенного познания. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология, 13(3), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu16.2023.303
Выпуск
Раздел
Теория и методология психологии
Лицензия
Статьи журнала «Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология» находятся в открытом доступе и распространяются в соответствии с условиями Лицензионного Договора с Санкт-Петербургским государственным университетом, который бесплатно предоставляет авторам неограниченное распространение и самостоятельное архивирование.
