Excessive use of reminders: Metacognition and effort-minimisation in cognitive offloading

Sachdeva, Chhavi; Gilbert, Sam J.

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2020.103024

Cited by 39 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be because cognitive effort is intrinsically costly [27,28]. Consistent with this, recent evidence shows that the bias towards reminders is reduced (but not eliminated) when participants receive financial compensation based on the number of points they score, which is hypothesized to increase cognitive effort [29]. Seeing as the participants in the present study received a fixed payment, regardless of their performance, it remains to be seen whether metacognitive interventions might be effective under conditions of performance-based reward.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 81%

“…Seeing as the participants in the present study received a fixed payment, regardless of their performance, it remains to be seen whether metacognitive interventions might be effective under conditions of performance-based reward. We also note that participants underwent the forced trials before the choice trials in this experiment, unlike previous studies where the two types of trial have generally been intermixed [11,29]. This could lead to inaccuracy in estimation of the reminder bias, if performance in the choice trials relative to forced trials was increased (e.g.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of metacognitive training on confidence and strategic reminder setting

Engeler¹,

Gilbert²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals often choose between remembering information using their own memory ability versus using external resources to reduce cognitive demand (i.e. ‘cognitive offloading’). For example, to remember a future appointment an individual could choose to set a smartphone reminder or depend on their unaided memory ability. Previous studies investigating strategic reminder setting found that participants set more reminders than would be optimal, and this bias towards reminder-setting was predicted by metacognitive underconfidence in unaided memory ability. Due to the link between underconfidence in memory ability and excessive reminder setting, the aim of the current study was to investigate whether metacognitive training is an effective intervention to a) improve metacognitive judgment accuracy, and b) reduce bias in strategic offloading behaviour. Participants either received metacognitive training which involved making performance predictions and receiving feedback on judgment accuracy, or were part of a control group. As predicted, metacognitive training increased judgment accuracy: participants in the control group were significantly underconfident in their memory ability, whereas the experimental group showed no significant metacognitive bias. However, contrary to predictions, both experimental and control groups were significantly biased toward reminder-setting, and did not differ significantly. Therefore, reducing metacognitive bias was not sufficient to eliminate the bias towards reminders. We suggest that the reminder bias likely results in part from erroneous metacognitive evaluations, but that other factors such as a preference to avoid cognitive effort may also be relevant. Finding interventions to mitigate these factors could improve the adaptive use of external resources.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of metacognitive training on confidence and strategic reminder setting

Engeler¹,

Gilbert²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study showed that a positive reminder bias can be observed in the context of both over-and under-confidence, indicating that one or more additional factors must be involved. Sachdeva and Gilbert (2020) provided evidence that one such factor is a preference to avoid cognitive effort.…”

Section: Intention Offloading and The Avoidance Of Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, individuals may prefer external reminders over internal memory because they incur a lower opportunity cost. Sachdeva and Gilbert (2020) argued that manipulating performance-based financial rewards allows a test of whether effort-avoidance influences intention offloading. If excessive use of reminders is explained by metacognitive error alone, then it should not matter whether or not performance is incentivised with financial reward.…”

Section: Intention Offloading and The Avoidance Of Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outsourcing memory to external tools: A review of ‘intention offloading’

Gilbert¹,

Boldt²,

Sachdeva³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we remember delayed intentions? Three decades of research into prospective memory have provided insight into the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in this form of memory. However, we depend on more than just our brains to remember intentions. We also use external props and tools such as calendars and diaries, strategically-placed objects, and technologies such as smartphone alerts. This is known as ‘intention offloading’. Despite the progress in our understanding of brain-based prospective memory, we know much less about the role of intention offloading in individuals’ ability to fulfil delayed intentions. Here, we review recent research into intention offloading, with a particular focus on how individuals decide between storing intentions in internal memory versus external reminders. We also review studies investigating how intention offloading changes across the lifespan and how it relates to underlying brain mechanisms. We conclude that intention offloading is highly effective, experimentally tractable, and guided by metacognitive processes. Therefore, metacognitive interventions could play an important role in promoting individuals’ adaptive use of cognitive tools.

show abstract

“…Raising the costs of externalisations (e.g., by adding additional physical or temporal demands) increases the use of internal strategies such as memory-based processing, whereas lowering the costs of externalisations increases the use of technical tools (e.g., Cary & Carlson, 2001; Gray & Fu, 2004; Gray et al, 2006; Morgan & Patrick, 2013; O’Hara & Payne, 1998; Schönpflug, 1986). However, not all decisions to offload cognitive processes follow cost–benefit considerations of different strategies but may also be influenced by the current goals of the observers (Weis & Wiese, 2019) as well as their tendency to avoid demanding cognitive actions (Ballard et al, 1997; Kool et al, 2010; Sachdeva & Gilbert, 2020).…”

Section: Cognitive Offloadingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory

Grinschgl

Papenmeier

Meyerhoff

2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern technical tools such as tablets allow for the temporal externalization of working memory processes (i.e. cognitive offloading). Although such externalizations support immediate performance on different tasks, little is known about potential long-term consequences of offloading behavior. In the current set of experiments, we studied the relationship between cognitive offloading and subsequent memory for the offloaded information as well as the interplay of this relationship with the goal to acquire new memory representations. Our participants solved the Pattern Copy Task, in which we manipulated the costs of cognitive offloading and the awareness of a subsequent memory test. In Experiment 1 (N = 172), we showed that increasing the costs for offloading induces reduced offloading behavior. This reduction in offloading came along with lower immediate task performance but more accurate memory in an unexpected test. In Experiment 2 (N = 172), we confirmed these findings and observed that offloading behavior remained detrimental for subsequent memory performance when participants were aware of the upcoming memory test. Interestingly, Experiment 3 (N = 172) showed that cognitive offloading is not detrimental for long-term memory formation under all circumstances. Those participants who were forced to offload maximally but were aware of the memory test could almost completely counteract the negative impact of offloading on memory. Our experiments highlight the importance of the explicit goal to acquire new memory representations when relying on technical tools as offloading did have detrimental effects on memory without such a goal.

show abstract

Excessive use of reminders: Metacognition and effort-minimisation in cognitive offloading

Cited by 39 publications

References 43 publications

The effect of metacognitive training on confidence and strategic reminder setting

The effect of metacognitive training on confidence and strategic reminder setting

Outsourcing memory to external tools: A review of ‘intention offloading’

Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About