PSYCHOLOGY. SOCIOLOGY. EDUCATION.
Issue 1, 2014
CONTENTS
| Section | GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY | ||
| Codes UDC | 159.95 | Page | 117-125 |
| Title | The models of subjective evaluation of performance in cognitive tasks: Part 2. Inferential theories | ||
| Author 1 | Chetverikov Andrey A. | St. Petersburg State University 199034, St. Petersburg, Russia post-graduate student e-mail: a.chetverikov@psy.spbu.ru |
|
| Author 2 | Odainic Alexander S. | St. Petersburg State University 199034, St. Petersburg, Russia graduate student e-mail: odainic@gmail.com |
|
| Summary | In the second part of the present paper we continue to describe the models of meta-evaluation, that is the subjective evaluation of one�s own cognitive performance. We review the inferential theories which propose that subjective evaluation is the result of the indirect analysis of the decision. For example, one can be fully confident in his/her answer as he/she generally solves the tasks of this type well, or one can feel that the answer is �on the tip of the tongue� when the question evokes many associations. As in the case of additional evaluation theories and partial access theories reviewed in the first part of the paper, inferential theories have similar strengths and weaknesses regardless of the specific meta-judgment in question. They can handle well the problem of why meta-evaluations and objective performance can be dissociated. However, they do have difficulties in explaining why meta-evaluations are nevertheless correlated with the objective performance. In the final section of the paper we analyze the possible further directions for the theories of meta-evaluations. We pose three problems for the future theories: (1) how to explain the dissociation and the correlation of meta-knowledge and objective efficacy; (2) what is common and what is different for different meta-evaluations; (3) how are meta-evaluations and awareness related to each other. | ||
| Keywords | metacognitive processes, subjective evaluation of performance, confidence, feeling of knowledge, tip-of-the-tongue, warmth ratings. | ||