No pain no gain: The positive impact of punishment on the strategic regulation of accuracy

Metacognitive Ability and the Precision of Confidence

In prior research, signal detection theory (SDT) has been widely utilized to assess metacognitive ability. However, the SDT metacognitive model requires the use of a two-alternative forced-choice task, while confidence must also be measured discretely. In our model, participants' cognitive ability and their confidence in the cognitive task were used to estimate their metacognitive abilities. Therefore, in this study, a metacognitive model that can be applied to various cognitive tasks was developed. This model implements the item response theory (IRT) and Q-learning models to estimate cognitive ability; participants' metacognitive ability is defined as the discrepancy between their confidence in their cognitive ability and their actual cognitive ability. The entire procedure was divided into two experiments. In experiment 1, two different cognitive tasks were used to estimate metacognitive ability and to examine overall discriminative and convergent validity. Notably, the parameters representing metacognitive ability did not correlate with cognitive ability but were positively correlated between the two tasks. In experiment 2, we performed a similar analysis using a different task to test the replicability of experiment 1. The results for experiment 2 were replicated for discriminative and convergent validity, albeit with weak results. Our metacognitive model exhibited high interpretability and versatility.

The (limited) effect of emotional arousal in the regulation of accuracy in eyewitness memory

Witnesses encoding a crime are likely to feel negative emotions with high arousal, e.g., anxiety or fear. Negative emotions improve memory for central information and impair memory for peripheral information. In this study we explored the effects of emotional arousal and type of information in the regulation of accuracy. The regulation of accuracy allows participants to maximize accuracy, for example, by deciding on the number of alternatives in their response (the plurality option). Participants were induced with high-and low-arousal negative emotions and then shown a slideshow of a crime. Afterwards, they answered questions about central and peripheral contents of the event. Questions followed the basic plurality option procedure. First, participants selected one alternative (single answer); second, they selected three alternatives (plural answer); and, finally, they decided on reporting either the single or the plural answer. Results showed successful manipulation of arousal, and that the regulation of accuracy led to a greater increase in accuracy for peripheral than for central information, but no differences depending on the level of arousal. We also identified two factors that increased accuracy in the plurality option: the ability to discard answers with low chances of being correct and the addition of answers with higher chances of being correct. Either one, or both, can increase witness accuracy.