Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities

This study explored the interaction between visual metacognitive judgments about others and cues related to the workings of System 1 and System 2. We examined how intrinsic cues (i.e., saliency of a visual change) and experience cues (i.e., detection/blindness) affect people’s predictions about othe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jeniffer Ortega, Patricia Montañes, Anthony Barnhart, Gustav Kuhn
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2021-08-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211039242
id doaj-ce93e97902834c6a94fcdf24fdd9bbe9
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ce93e97902834c6a94fcdf24fdd9bbe92021-08-27T22:03:28ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952021-08-011210.1177/20416695211039242Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection AbilitiesJeniffer OrtegaPatricia MontañesAnthony BarnhartGustav KuhnThis study explored the interaction between visual metacognitive judgments about others and cues related to the workings of System 1 and System 2. We examined how intrinsic cues (i.e., saliency of a visual change) and experience cues (i.e., detection/blindness) affect people’s predictions about others’ change detection abilities. In Experiment 1, 60 participants were instructed to notice a subtle and a salient visual change in a magic trick that exploits change blindness, after which they estimated the probability that others would detect the change. In Experiment 2, 80 participants watched either the subtle or the salient version of the trick and they were asked to provide predictions for the experienced change. In Experiment 1, participants predicted that others would detect the salient change more easily than the subtle change, which was consistent with the actual detection reported in Experiment 2. In Experiment 2, participants’ personal experience (i.e., whether they detected the change) biased their predictions. Moreover, there was a significant difference between their predictions and offline predictions from Experiment 1. Interestingly, change blindness led to lower predictions. These findings point to joint contributions of experience and information cues on metacognitive judgments about other people’s change detection abilities.https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211039242
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jeniffer Ortega
Patricia Montañes
Anthony Barnhart
Gustav Kuhn
spellingShingle Jeniffer Ortega
Patricia Montañes
Anthony Barnhart
Gustav Kuhn
Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities
i-Perception
author_facet Jeniffer Ortega
Patricia Montañes
Anthony Barnhart
Gustav Kuhn
author_sort Jeniffer Ortega
title Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities
title_short Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities
title_full Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities
title_fullStr Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities
title_full_unstemmed Differential Effects of Experience and Information Cues on Metacognitive Judgments About Others’ Change Detection Abilities
title_sort differential effects of experience and information cues on metacognitive judgments about others’ change detection abilities
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2021-08-01
description This study explored the interaction between visual metacognitive judgments about others and cues related to the workings of System 1 and System 2. We examined how intrinsic cues (i.e., saliency of a visual change) and experience cues (i.e., detection/blindness) affect people’s predictions about others’ change detection abilities. In Experiment 1, 60 participants were instructed to notice a subtle and a salient visual change in a magic trick that exploits change blindness, after which they estimated the probability that others would detect the change. In Experiment 2, 80 participants watched either the subtle or the salient version of the trick and they were asked to provide predictions for the experienced change. In Experiment 1, participants predicted that others would detect the salient change more easily than the subtle change, which was consistent with the actual detection reported in Experiment 2. In Experiment 2, participants’ personal experience (i.e., whether they detected the change) biased their predictions. Moreover, there was a significant difference between their predictions and offline predictions from Experiment 1. Interestingly, change blindness led to lower predictions. These findings point to joint contributions of experience and information cues on metacognitive judgments about other people’s change detection abilities.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211039242
work_keys_str_mv AT jenifferortega differentialeffectsofexperienceandinformationcuesonmetacognitivejudgmentsaboutotherschangedetectionabilities
AT patriciamontanes differentialeffectsofexperienceandinformationcuesonmetacognitivejudgmentsaboutotherschangedetectionabilities
AT anthonybarnhart differentialeffectsofexperienceandinformationcuesonmetacognitivejudgmentsaboutotherschangedetectionabilities
AT gustavkuhn differentialeffectsofexperienceandinformationcuesonmetacognitivejudgmentsaboutotherschangedetectionabilities
_version_ 1721188024407031808