title: The comparative study of metacognition: sharper paradigms, safer inferences.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA. psysmith@buffalo.edu
authors.forename: J David
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Michael J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Beran
authors.forename: Justin J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Couchman
authors.forename: Mariana V C
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Coutinho
mesh_terms: 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
references.citation: J Gen Psychol. 2005 Apr;132(2):165-86
references.pmid: 15871299
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Mar 20;17(6):551-5
references.pmid: 17346969
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Jul;35(3):371-81
references.pmid: 19594282
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Jun;26(3):317-39; discussion 340-73
references.pmid: 14968691
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1993 Oct;100(4):609-39
references.pmid: 8255951
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Apr 24;98(9):5359-62
references.pmid: 11274360
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995 Dec;124(4):391-408
references.pmid: 8530911
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Mar;1(1):2-28
references.pmid: 24203412
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):64-71
references.pmid: 17362380
references.citation: Cognition. 1997 Jan;62(1):75-97
references.pmid: 8997171
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Apr;32(2):111-9
references.pmid: 16634654
references.citation: Science. 1987 Sep 11;237(4820):1317-23
references.pmid: 3629243
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Apr;32(2):185-9
references.pmid: 16634662
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Sep;1(3):357-75
references.pmid: 24203520
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997 Jun;126(2):147-64
references.pmid: 9163934
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Sep;127(3):227-50
references.pmid: 9742715
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1949 Jan;56(1):51-65
references.pmid: 18124807
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2008 Jan;11(1):21-42
references.pmid: 17437141
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Jun;26(3):352
references.pmid: 18241459
references.citation: Am J Primatol. 1982;2(3):237-248
references.pmid: 32192237
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006 May;135(2):282-97
references.pmid: 16719654