ArticlePloS one2020
The effect of metacognitive training on confidence and strategic reminder setting.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metacognitive training facilitates optimal cognitive offloading.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Cost avoidance underlies decisions to use prospective memory reminders.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Article
- Individual differences in prospective and retrospective memory offloading.Journal of memory and language · 2025Article
- Influence of the physical effort of reminder-setting on strategic offloading of delayed intentions.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Overreliance on inefficient computer-mediated information retrieval is countermanded by strategy advice that promotes memory-mediated retrieval.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Observational
- Identifying Transdiagnostic Mechanisms in Mental Health Using Computational Factor Modeling.Biological psychiatry · 2023Review
- Outsourcing Memory to External Tools: A Review of 'Intention Offloading'.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Depressive Symptoms are Associated with More Negative Global Metacognitive Biases in Combat Veterans, and Biases Covary with Symptom Changes over Time.Depression and anxiety · 2023Article
- Framing cognitive offloading in terms of gains or losses: achieving a more optimal use of reminders.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Individual differences in cognitive offloading: a comparison of intention offloading, pattern copy, and short-term memory capacity.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.