Metacognition
Are We More Accurate at Judging Future or Past Decisions?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
People are significantly better at judging the accuracy of their decisions after they have made them compared to beforehand.
Key findings
Although confidence levels predicted accuracy across all conditions, metacognitive accuracy was significantly higher for retrospective judgments than for prospective ones. Additionally, participants who rated their confidence before seeing the target word reported lower confidence overall and showed lower decision accuracy, which dropped to 66% compared to 70% in the retrospective condition.
Methodology
Ninety-seven young adults were split into three groups to solve anagrams and evaluate their confidence. In the retrospective condition, participants saw a potential solution, decided if it was correct, and then rated their confidence. In both prospective conditions, participants rated their confidence either before seeing the potential solution or after seeing it but before making their final decision.
Limitations
The study cannot pinpoint exactly which post-decisional cues, such as physical action or cognitive feedback, boost retrospective accuracy. It also excludes data from participants whose accuracy fell below 60%, meaning these findings might not apply to individuals who struggle with the task. Finally, because it used a specific anagram-solving task, the results may not generalize to other types of cognitive or perceptual decisions.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Self-evaluations made after a decision (retrospective judgments) are significantly more accurate than predictions made before or during a task (prospective judgments).
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.