Metacognition
Does knowing how well you're doing improve during adolescence?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
The ability to judge accurately when you are right or wrong improved with age across adolescence and then levelled off in adulthood, even though task performance itself was held constant.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Adolescents and adults compared on a two-interval contrast pop-out task with confidence ratings; performance clamped near 71% by staircase; metacognition measured as area under the type II ROC.
- N
- N=56 · 28 adolescents aged 11-17 and 28 adults aged 19-41 included after four exclusions.
- Population
- Healthy adolescents and adults recruited in the UK through schools and word of mouth
- Outcome
- Metacognitive ability (Aroc, how well confidence tracks accuracy) and confidence bias (Broc)
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Accuracy was held near 71% for everyone, and task difficulty and perceptual sensitivity were unrelated to age. Metacognitive ability rose with age within the adolescent group and did not change within adults; surprisingly, adolescents as a group scored slightly higher than adults. Confidence bias followed a similar rise-then-fall pattern, but controlling for it did not remove the metacognition effect. Females showed somewhat better metacognition than males.
Methodology
Adolescents and adults watched two brief displays of striped patches and decided which display contained the patch with higher contrast, then rated their confidence on a six-point scale. A staircase adjusted difficulty so that everyone got about the same proportion correct, separating metacognition from raw ability. Metacognitive ability was measured as how well each person's confidence distinguished their correct from incorrect answers, and age effects were tested within and between age groups.
Limitations
This is a small cross-sectional sample, so it compares different people of different ages rather than following individuals as they develop, and the within-adolescent correlation was only just significant. It measures metacognition for one visual task, so it may not reflect metacognition about memory, reasoning or learning, and no link to school learning or mentalising was tested. The unexpected adolescent advantage over adults and the sex difference were not predicted and need replication in larger samples.
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.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.