There is currently little direct evidence regarding the function of subjective confidence in decision making: The tight correlation between objective accuracy and subjective confidence makes it difficult to distinguish each variable’s unique contribution. Here, we created conditions in a perceptual decision task that were matched in accuracy but differed in subjective evaluation of accuracy by orthogonally varying the strength versus variability of evidence. Confidence was reduced with variable (vs. weak) evidence, even across conditions matched for difficulty. Building on this dissociation, we constructed a paradigm in which participants (N = 20) could choose to seek further information before making their decision. The data provided clear support for the hypothesis that subjective confidence predicts information seeking in decision making: Participants were more likely to sample additional information before giving a response in the condition with low confidence, despite matched accuracy. In a preregistered replication (N = 50), these findings were replicated with increased task difficulty levels.
BatesD. M.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
2.
BjorkR. A.DunloskyJ.KornellN. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
3.
BoldtA.de GardelleV.YeungN. (2017). The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias in decision confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1520–1531. doi:10.1037/xhp0000404
4.
BoldtA.YeungN. (2015). Shared neural markers of decision confidence and error detection. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 3478–3484. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0797-14.2015
5.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
6.
ButlerD. L.WinneP. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
7.
CallJ.CarpenterM. (2000). Do apes and children know what they have seen?Animal Cognition, 3, 207–220. doi:10.1007/s100710100078
8.
de GardelleV.SummerfieldC. (2011). Robust averaging during perceptual judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 13341–13346. doi:10.1073/pnas.1104517108
9.
De MartinoB.FlemingS. M.GarrettN.DolanR. J. (2013). Confidence in value-based choice. Nature Neuroscience, 16, 105–110. doi:10.1038/nn.3279
10.
DonnerT. H.SiegelM.FriesP.EngelA. K. (2009). Buildup of choice-predictive activity in human motor cortex during perceptual decision making. Current Biology, 19, 1581–1585. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.066
11.
FlemingS. M.LauH. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 443. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443
12.
FlemingS. M.WeilR. S.NagyZ.DolanR. J.ReesG. (2010). Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329, 1541–1543. doi:10.1126/science.1191883
13.
FolkeT.JacobsenC.FlemingS. M.De MartinoB. (2016). Explicit representation of confidence informs future value-based decisions. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 17–19. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0002
14.
FooteA. L.CrystalJ. D. (2007). Metacognition in the rat. Current Biology, 17, 551–555. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.061
15.
GoldJ. I.ShadlenM. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–561. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038
16.
HamptonR. R. (2001). Rhesus monkeys know when they remember. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98, 5359–5362. doi:10.1073/pnas.071600998
17.
KianiR.ShadlenM. N. (2009). Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science, 324, 759–764. doi:10.1126/science.1169405
18.
KvamP. D.PleskacT. J. (2016). Strength and weight: The determinants of choice and confidence. Cognition, 152, 170–180. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.04.008
19.
Le PelleyM. E. (2012). Metacognitive monkeys or associative animals? Simple reinforcement learning explains uncertainty in nonhuman animals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 686–708. doi:10.1037/a0026478
20.
LindsayD. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832. doi:10.1177/0956797615616374
21.
MacdonaldJ. S. P.MathanS.YeungN. (2011). Trial-by-trial variations in subjective attentional state are reflected in ongoing prestimulus EEG alpha oscillations. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 82. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00082
22.
ManiscalcoB.LauH. (2012). A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 422–430. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.021
23.
MetcalfeJ.FinnB. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.174
24.
MeynielF.SigmanM.MainenZ. F. (2015). Confidence as Bayesian probability: From neural origins to behavior. Neuron, 88, 78–92. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.039
25.
MoranR.TeodorescuA. R.UsherM. (2015). Post choice information integration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 99–147. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.002
NuijtenM. B.WetzelsR.MatzkeD.DolanC. V.WagenmakersE.-J. (2015). A default Bayesian hypothesis test for correlations and partial correlations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 47, 85–97. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0295-x
28.
PasqualiA.TimmermansB.CleeremansA. (2010). Know thyself: Metacognitive networks and measures of consciousness. Cognition, 117, 182–190. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.010
29.
PleskacT. J.BusemeyerJ. R. (2010). Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychological Review, 117, 864–901. doi:10.1037/a0022399
30.
PurcellB. A.KianiR. (2016). Hierarchical decision processes that operate over distinct timescales underlie choice and changes in strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, E4531–E4540. doi:10.1073/pnas.1524685113
31.
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873–922.
32.
ResulajA.KianiR.WolpertD. M.ShadlenM. N. (2009). Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature, 461, 263–266. doi:10.1038/nature08275
33.
SimonsohnU. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26, 559–569. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2259879
34.
SmithJ. D.StroteJ.EgnorR.SchullJ.McGeeK.ErbL. (1995). The uncertain response in the bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 391–408. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.4.391
35.
SpenceM. L.DuxP. E.ArnoldD. H. (2016). Computations underlying confidence in visual perception computations underlying confidence in visual perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 671–682.
36.
TingleyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5). doi:10.18637/jss.v059.i05 doi:10.18637/jss.v059.i05
37.
van den BergR.AnandalingamK.ZylberbergA.KianiR.ShadlenM. N.WolpertD. M. (2016). A common mechanism underlies changes of mind about decisions and confidence. eLife, 5, Article 12192. doi:10.7554/eLife.12192
38.
van den BergR.ZylberbergA.KianiR.ShadlenM. N.WolpertD. M. (2016). Confidence is the bridge between multi-stage decisions. Current Biology, 26, 3157–3168. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.021
39.
WagenmakersE.-J.KrypotosA.-M.CrissA. H.IversonG. (2012). On the interpretation of removable interactions: A survey of the field 33 years after Loftus. Memory & Cognition, 40, 145–160. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0158-0
40.
YeungN.SummerfieldC. (2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367, 1310–1321. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0416
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
