Humans learn by watching others. One aspect of these observations are our Judgments of Difficulty (JODs) about a task. Research has revealed discrepancies in the judgments we make while performing and observing; these discrepancies are alternatively explained by the Simulation and Theory Models of metacognition. This study tested these models by capitalizing on a behavior that naturally occurs during observation: covert performance. We compared the cues to difficulty used by pure observers and covert performers as they watched an automated system (AS) perform a visual search task. Students used peripheral and central cues to difficulty similarly, regardless of whether they purely observed or covertly performed the task, lending support to the Theory Model of metacognition. The study offers an explanation for peoples’ inflated sense of ability while watching others perform and suggests that providing people with experience – not just observation– is a critical part of correcting these faulty judgments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArbuckleT. Y.CuddyL. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 126-131.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.DaiB.ScheiplF.GrothendieckG.GreenP.FoxJ.BauerA.KrivitskyP. N. (2020). Package lme4 (Version 1.1-25) [Computer software]. R.
3.
BeranM. J.BrandlJ. L.PernerJ.ProustJ. (2012). Foundations of Metacognition. Oxford University Press.
DesenderK.Van OpstalF.Van den BusscheE. (2017). Subjective experience of difficulty depends on multiple cues. Scientific Reports, 7, 44222. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44222
6.
GalleseV.GoldmanA. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2(12), 493-501.
7.
GopnikA.MeltzoffA. N. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Mit Press.
8.
GopnikA.WellmanH. M. (1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory.
9.
GordonR. M. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & language, 1(2), 158-171.
10.
HealJ. (1996). Simulation, theory, and content. Theories of theories of mind, 75-89.
11.
HullC. L. (1943). Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory (ElliottR. M., Ed.). Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
12.
JianJ. Y.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71.
13.
KardasM.O’BrienE. (2018). Easier seen than done: Merely watching others perform can foster an illusion of skill acquisition. Psychological science.
14.
LenthR.SingmannH.LoveJ.BuerknerP.HerveM. (2019). Package emmeans (Version 1.3.4) [Computer software]. R.
15.
MatveyG.DunloskyJ.GuttentagR. (2001). Fluency of retrieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): an analytic or nonanalytic basis for JOLs?Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194916
16.
MerrittS. M.HeimbaughH.LaChapellJ.LeeD. (2013). I Trust It, but I Don’t Know Why: Effects of Implicit Attitudes Toward Automation on Trust in an Automated System. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55(3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812465081
17.
MetcalfeJ.KornellN. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of memory and language, 52(4), 463-477.
MitchellS. H. (2017). Devaluation of outcomes due to their cost: extending discounting models beyond delay. In StevensJ. R. (Ed.), Impulsivity (Vol. 64, pp. 145–161). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51721-6_5
20.
NelsonT. O.NarensL. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In BowerG. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 125–173). Academic Press.
21.
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLhttps://www.R-project.org/
22.
Society of Automotive Engineers International. (2021). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On- Road Motor Vehicles (J3016_202104). SAE International. https://www.sae.org/
23.
SonL. K.MetcalfeJ. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/02787393.26.1.204
24.
TenhundfeldN. L.BarrH. M.O’HearE. H.WegerK. (2021). Is my siri the same as your siri? an exploration of users’ mental model of virtual personal assistants, implications for trust. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3107493
25.
UndorfM.AckermanR. (2017). The puzzle of study time allocation for the most challenging items. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 2003–2011. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1261-4
26.
UndorfM.ErdfelderE. (2013). Separation of encoding fluency and item difficulty effects on judgements of learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 2060–2072. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.777751
27.
UndorfM.ErdfelderE. (2014). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluence. Memory & Cognition, 43, 647-658.
28.
UndorfM.SöllnerA.BröderA. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 46, 507-519.
