Metacognitive Experience on Raven's Matrices versus Insight Problems

Autor/inn/en	Chuderski, Adam; Jastrzebski, Jan; Kroczek, Bartlomiej; Kucwaj, Hanna; Ociepka, Michal
Titel	Metacognitive Experience on Raven's Matrices versus Insight Problems
Quelle	In: Metacognition and Learning, 16 (2021) 1, S.15-35 (21 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Chuderski, Adam)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1556-1623
DOI	10.1007/s11409-020-09236-6
Schlagwörter	Metacognition; Intelligence Tests; Intuition; Difficulty Level; Problem Solving; Cognitive Processes; Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Meta cognitive ability; Meta-cognition; Metakognitive Fähigkeit; Metakognition; Intelligence test; Intelligenztest; Schwierigkeitsgrad; Problemlösen; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess
Abstract	Participants rated Intuition, Suddenness, Pleasure, and Certainty accompanying their solutions to items of a popular fluid intelligence test -- Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) -- that varied from easy (around 80% correct) to difficult (around 20% correct). The same ratings were collected from four insight problems interleaved with RAPM. Suddenness and Certainty substantially decreased from easy to difficult matrices (Pleasure strongly overlapped with Certainty). In easy matrices, subjective experience matched that observed during insight problems, suggesting the highly fluent processing resulting in vivid and univocal solutions. By contrast, processing difficult matrices seemed to involve effortful incremental combination of complex information that yielded uncertain outcomes, resembling full-blown analytic problems. Only Intuition, generally rated low, was unaffected by RAPM difficulty. These results suggest that RAPM constitutes a heterogeneous test, with easy vs. difficult items involving relatively distinct types of processing. This novel knowledge can help in understanding the processes underlying solving Raven's matrices. The study also contributes to the understanding of the validity of subjective ratings as measures of metacognition. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01