PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 10, 2026Memory & Cognition0 citationsOpen Access

Limited cue integration in metacognitive control decisions

LSLuisa M. SchulzABArndt BröderHLHannah Leitgeb

Key Points

  • This study aims to explore how multiple cues affect metacognitive control decisions, particularly examining cue integration in learning judgments.
  • Two experiments with 60 words and varying cues: concreteness and emotionality in Experiment 1; font format and word frequency in Experiment 2.
  • Participants made restudy choices or provided judgments of learning (JOLs) based on the cues provided.
  • All participants completed a recall test after making their choices.
  • In Experiment 1, both cues significantly influenced restudy choices, while in Experiment 2, only one cue had a significant effect.
  • Analysis showed variability as some participants prioritized cues associated with lower JOLs, while others preferred those associated with higher JOLs.
  • Effect sizes for cue effects on restudy choices were smaller than those for JOLs, indicating weaker cue integration.

Abstract

Abstract Metacognitive judgments and decisions involve uncertainty and rely on probabilistic cues. Prior research shows that people integrate multiple cues when making judgments of learning (JOLs). The present study examined whether metacognitive control decisions are influenced by multiple cues as well. In each of two experiments, participants studied 60 words varying on two cues (Experiment 1: concreteness, emotionality; Experiment 2: font format, word frequency). In Experiment 1, all participants made restudy choices to maximize later recall, whereas in Experiment 2, half made restudy choices, and the other half provided JOLs. Participants who made restudy choices restudied their selected items, and all participants completed a recall test at the end of the experiment. At the group level, both cues influenced restudy choices in Experiment 1, but only one cue did so in Experiment 2. Individual-level analyses of Experiment 2 revealed that most participants used both cues, yet the direction of cue use differed across participants: Some participants more often selected items with cue values associated with lower JOLs, whereas others more often selected items with cue values associated with higher JOLs. Overall, effect sizes for cue effects on restudy choices were smaller than those for JOLs. These findings suggest that multiple cues guided metacognitive control decisions, but that cue integration and cue use were weaker and varied more across individuals than in metacognitive judgments. This pattern indicates that the alignment between monitoring and control is reduced by other factors influencing restudy choices.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Schulz et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a00217ac8f74e3340f9c62ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-026-01889-z
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand.2010 · 1,190 citations
  2. 2Why Investigate Metacognition?1994 · 747 citations
  3. 3A Comparison of Different Methods for the Elicitation of Attribute Weights: Structural Modeling, Process Tracing, and Self-Reports1995 · 55 citations
  4. 4Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgement and Choice1981 · 1,700 citations
  5. 5G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences2007 · 65,955 citations