The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment

Abstract

According to the Discrepancy Reduction Model for metacognitive regulation, people invest time in cognitive tasks in a goal-driven manner until their metacognitive judgment, either judgment of learning (JOL) or confidence, meets their preset goal. This stopping rule should lead to judgments above the goal, regardless of invested time. However, in many tasks, time is negatively correlated with JOL and confidence, with low judgments after effortful processing. This pattern has often been explained as stemming from bottom-up fluency effects on the judgments. While accepting this explanation for simple tasks, like memorizing pairs of familiar words, the proposed Diminishing Criterion Model (DCM) challenges this explanation for complex tasks, like problem solving. Under the DCM, people indeed invest effort in a goal-driven manner. However, investing more time leads to increasing compromise on the goal, resulting in negative time-judgment correlations. Experiment 1 exposed that with word-pair memorization, negative correlations are found only with minimal fluency and difficulty variability, whereas in problem solving, they are found consistently. As predicted, manipulations of low incentives (Experiment 2) and time pressure (Experiment 3) in problem solving revealed greater compromise as more time was invested in a problem. Although intermediate confidence ratings rose during the solving process, the result was negative time-confidence correlations (Experiments 3, 4, and 5), and this was not eliminated by the opportunity to respond "don't know" (Experiments 4 and 5). The results suggest that negative time-judgment correlations in complex tasks stem from top-down regulatory processes with a criterion that diminishes with invested time.