Metacognition during unfamiliar face matching

Abstract

Kruger and Dunning (1999) described a metacognitive bias in which insight into performance is linked to competence: poorer performers are less aware of their mistakes than better performers. Competence-based insight has been argued to apply generally across task domains, including a recent report investigating social cognition using a variety of face-matching tasks. Problematically, serious statistical and methodological criticisms have been directed against the traditional method of analysis used by researchers in this field. Here, we further illustrate these issues and investigate new sources of insight within unfamiliar face matching.Over two experiments (total N = 1077), where Experiment 2 was a preregistered replication of the key findings from Experiment 1, we found that insight into performance was multi-faceted. Participants demonstrated insight which was not based on competence, in the form of accurate updating of estimated performance. We also found evidence of insight which was based on competence: the difference in confidence on correct versus incorrect trials increased with competence. By providing ways that we can move beyond problematic, traditional approaches, we have begun to reveal a more realistic story regarding the nature of insight into face perception.

Forensic facial examiners versus super‐recognizers: Evaluating behavior beyond accuracy

“…Recent work on the general population compared these two types of estimates. They showed that global assessments of ability may not be as informative as decision-based metrics, such as confidence on a trial (Kramer et al, 2022). It would be useful for face specialist recruitment to directly compare the utility of self-reported estimates of ability from questionnaires and implicit, decision-based estimates of accuracy, such as those obtained in the current study.…”

“…Therefore, this moderate degree of metacognitive awareness is observed for both self-assessed measures from previous studies and the implicit, decision-based measures from this study (average confidence and difficulty ratings). Recent work on the general population compared global and decision-based estimates of accuracy directly (Kramer et al, 2022). They showed that global assessments of ability may not be as informative as decision-based metrics, such as confidence on a trial.…”

Face matching and metacognition: investigating individual differences and a training intervention

“…Of course, not all participants are equally capable of differentiating between their correct and incorrect responses with regard to confidence. Across two different tasks, Kramer et al (2022) found that increased competence with face matching ( i.e ., a higher overall score on objective tests) predicted greater metacognitive insight, represented by a larger distinction between correct and incorrect responses in terms of confidence ratings given. The best performers were significantly more confident in their correct ( vs incorrect) responses, while the worst performers’ confidence ratings failed to distinguish between correct and incorrect decisions.…”

“…Evidence supporting this account would be provided by an interaction between objective and self-assessed abilities when considering metacognitive sensitivity. As such, a measure of self-assessed ability is needed—something which was absent in Kramer et al (2022) .…”

A Statistical Explanation of the Dunning–Kruger Effect

“…The DK effect also occurs in different environments, for example the problem of face recognition. This situation was recently investigated by Kramer et al (2022), who found imperfect correlation between self-insight and competence.…”