4.7 Article

Joint contributions of metacognition and self-beliefs to uncertainty-guided checking behavior

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97958-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Regionale de Sante Ile-de-France
  2. Fondation Bettencourt Schueller
  3. European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) NEURON
  4. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale (FRM grant: TORPIDO) [DPP20151033971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research found that explicit metacognition significantly influences the regulation of checking behavior, while implicit metacognition does not. Additionally, participants' self-beliefs are related to their tendencies of uncertainty-guided checking.
Checking behavior is a natural and adaptive strategy for resolving uncertainty in everyday situations. Here, we aimed at investigating the psychological drivers of checking and its regulation by uncertainty, in non-clinical participants and controlled experimental settings. We found that the sensitivity of participants' explicit confidence judgments to actual performance (explicit metacognition) predicted the extent to which their checking strategy was regulated by uncertainty. Yet, a more implicit measure of metacognition (derived from asking participants to opt between trials) did not contribute to the regulation of checking behavior. Meanwhile, how participants scaled on questionnaires eliciting self-beliefs such as self-confidence and self-reported obsessive-compulsive symptoms also predicted participants' uncertainty-guided checking tendencies. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that checking behavior is likely the outcome of a core explicit metacognitive process operating at the scale of single decisions, while remaining influenced by general self-beliefs. Our findings are thus consistent with two mechanisms (micro vs. macro) through which this otherwise adaptive behavior could go awry in certain psychiatric disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据