The persistence of the fluency–confidence association in problem solving

Abstract

Confidence in answers is known to be sensitive to the fluency with which answers come to mind. One aspect of fluency is response latency. Latency is often a valid cue for accuracy, showing an inverse relationship with both accuracy rates and confidence. The present study examined the independent latency-confidence association in problem-solving tasks. The tasks were ecologically valid situations in which latency showed no validity, moderate validity, and high validity as a predictor of accuracy. In Experiment 1, misleading problems, which often elicit initial wrong solutions, were answered in open-ended and multiple-choice test formats. Under the open-ended test format, latency was absolutely not valid in predicting accuracy: Quickly and slowly provided solutions had a similar chance of being correct. Under the multiple-choice test format, latency predicted accuracy better. In Experiment 2, nonmisleading problems were used; here, latency was highly valid in predicting accuracy. A breakdown into correct and incorrect solutions allowed examination of the independent latency-confidence relationship when latency necessarily had no validity in predicting accuracy. In all conditions, regardless of latency's validity in predicting accuracy, confidence was persistently sensitive to latency: The participants were more confident in solutions provided quickly than in those that involved lengthy thinking. The study suggests that the reliability of the latency-confidence association in problem solving depends on the strength of the inverse relationship between latency and accuracy in the particular task.

Metacognitive awareness and the link with undergraduate examination performance and clinical reasoning

“…Procedural knowledge refers to the performing of knowledge or implicit knowledge and is a behaviour or skill. If knowing when and why to use a particular skill is important it becomes conditional knowledge which involves the regulation of memory, thought and learning (Ackerman & Zalmanov, 2012).…”

Intuition and metacognition: The effect of semantic coherence on judgments of learning

“…Although no prior JOL study has used coherent and incoherent triads (but see Ackerman & Zalmanov, 2012, for a study of metacognition in problem solving), research on the effect of pair relatedness on JOLs is relevant. This work demonstrated that JOLs are higher for related than for unrelated paired associates (cf.…”

The 36 % Problem

“…Students may respond to such feelings by cheating as indicated above (Batane 2010), by giving up (Smith et al 1982), by selfhandicapping (Thompson and Hepburn 2003), or by finding ''honest'' cognitive shortcuts that enable them to feel successful despite an actual lack of progress (Chance et al 2011). Moreover, people often mistakenly associate ease (or what some researchers call fluency) with learning or knowing, and they interpret cognitive strain as a sign of stupidity or error (Bjork 1994;Dunning 2005;Ackerman and Zalmanov 2012). As a result, cognitive shortcuts that, like patchwriting, enable students to sustain their self-esteem and feel like they accomplished the task easily may seem particularly alluring.…”