The comparative study of metacognition: sharper paradigms, safer inferences.
Results that point to animals' metacognitive capacity bear a heavy burden, given the potential for competing behavioral descriptions. In this article, formal models are used to evaluate the force of these descriptions. One example is that many existing studies have directly rewarded so-called uncertainty responses. Modeling confirms that this practice is an interpretative danger because it supports associative processes and encourages simpler interpretations. Another example is that existing studies raise the concern that animals avoid difficult stimuli not because of uncertainty monitored, but because of aversion given error-causing or reinforcement-lean stimuli. Modeling also justifies this concern and shows that this problem is not addressed by the common practice of comparing performance on chosen and forced trials. The models and related discussion have utility for metacognition researchers and theorists broadly, because they specify the experimental operations that will best indicate a metacognitive capacity in humans or animals by eliminating alternative behavioral accounts.
Smith
J David
JD
Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA. psysmith@buffalo.edu
Beran
Michael J
MJ
Couchman
Justin J
JJ
Coutinho
Mariana V C
MV
D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning; D001288:Attention; D001364:Awareness; D003071:Cognition; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005795:Generalization, Stimulus; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D015233:Models, Statistical; D016011:Normal Distribution; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012054:Reinforcement, Psychology; D012201:Reward; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological; D013045:Species Specificity; D014163:Transfer, Psychology; D035501:Uncertainty
J Gen Psychol. 2005 Apr;132(2):165-86
15871299
Curr Biol. 2007 Mar 20;17(6):551-5
17346969
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Jul;35(3):371-81
19594282
Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Jun;26(3):317-39; discussion 340-73
14968691
Psychol Rev. 1993 Oct;100(4):609-39
8255951
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Apr 24;98(9):5359-62
11274360
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995 Dec;124(4):391-408
8530911
Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Mar;1(1):2-28
24203412
Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):64-71
17362380
Cognition. 1997 Jan;62(1):75-97
8997171
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Apr;32(2):111-9
16634654
Science. 1987 Sep 11;237(4820):1317-23
3629243
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Apr;32(2):185-9
16634662
Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Sep;1(3):357-75
24203520
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997 Jun;126(2):147-64
9163934
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Sep;127(3):227-50
9742715
Psychol Rev. 1949 Jan;56(1):51-65
18124807
Anim Cogn. 2008 Jan;11(1):21-42
17437141
Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Jun;26(3):352
18241459
Am J Primatol. 1982;2(3):237-248
32192237
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006 May;135(2):282-97
16719654