Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The correction of errors committed with high confidence

  • Empirical Study
  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most theories predict that when people indicate that they are highly confident they are producing their strongest responses. Hence, if such a high confidence response is in error it should be overwritten only with great difficulty. In contrast to this prediction, we have found that people easily correct erroneous responses to general information questions endorsed as correct with high-confidence, so long as the correct answer is given as feedback. Three potential explanations for this unexpected hypercorrection effect are summarized. The explanation that is tested here, in two experiments, is that after a person commits a high-confidence error the correct answer feedback, being surprising or unexpected, is given more attention than is accorded to the feedback to low-confidence errors. This enhanced attentional capture leads to better memory. In both experiments, a tone detection task was presented concurrently with the corrective feedback to assess the attentional capture of feedback stimuli. In both, tone detection was selectively impaired during the feedback to high confidence errors. It was also negatively related to final performance, indicating that the attention not devoted to the tone detection was effectively engaged by the corrective feedback. These data support the attentional explanation of the high-confidence hypercorrection effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. A. (1973). A theory for the recognition of items from short memorized lists. Psychological Review, 80, 417–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1972). Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall. Psychological Review, 79, 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnell, Karen M. (2001). Cross-modal interactions in dual-task paradigms. In K. Shapiro (Ed.), The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing. (pp. 141–177). London, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 2 (pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, J. M., & Underwood, B. J. (1959). “Fate” of first-list associations in transfer theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 97–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, B., & Mangels, J. A., (2003). Neural correlates of metamemory mismatch and error correction in a semantic retrieval task. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 793–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2001a). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1491–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2001b). Updating the egregious: The relationship between confidence and error correction. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society.

  • Butterfield, B., & Stern, Y. (2006, in preparation). A reduction of the hypercorrection effect in elders.

  • Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Galambos, R. (1975). Stimulus novelty, task relevance, and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39, 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crombez, G., Eccleston, C., Baeyens, F., & Eelen, P. (1996). The disruptive nature of pain: An experimental investigation. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 34, 911–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, C. S., Koutstaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (2000). Escape from illusion: Reducing false memories. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, D. A., McDermott, K. B., Percer, J. M., & Roediger, H. L. I. (2001). Modality effects in false recall and false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M.,Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, A., Spencer, K. M., & Donchin, E. (2002). The influence of stimulus deviance and novelty on the P300 and Novelty P3. Psychophysiology, 39, 781–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintzman, D. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 16, 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. R., & Lamb, C. A. (2001). What causes the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1359–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 188, 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P. (1999). Restricted attentional capacity between sensory modalities. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, S. D. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, R. T. (1984). Decreased response to novel stimuli after prefrontal lesions in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 59, 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch, J. A. (1942). The psychology of human learning. New York: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, D. J. (1986). Adult age differences in the attentional capacity demands of visual search. Cognitive Development. 1, 335–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, A. W., & Irwin, J. (1940). The influence of degree of interpolated learning on retroactive inhibition and the overt transfer of specific responses. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 173–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (1990). Composite Holographic Associative Recall Model (CHARM) and blended memories in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (1993a). Novelty monitoring, metacognition, and control in a composite holographic associative recall model: Implications for Korsakoff amnesia. Psychological Review, 100, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (l993b). Monitoring and gain control in an episodic memory model: Relation to P300 event-related potentials. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 327–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe Eich, J. (1982). A composite holographic associative recall model. Psychological Review, 89, 627–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G. E., & Schumann, F. (1894). Experimentelle Beiträge zur Untersuchung des Gedächtnisses. Zertschrift für Psychologie, 6, 81–190, 257–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 338–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review, 56, 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. London: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. & Kroll, N. (1995). Novelty assessment in the brain and long-term memory encoding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 387–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zandt, T. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Restorff, H. (1933). Uber die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld. Psychologische Forschun, 18, 299–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, L. W. (1917). Transfer of training and retroaction: A comparative study. Psychological Monographs, 24(3), 1–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. B, & Loftus, E. F. (1998). How misinformation alters memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 55–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Brady Butterfield & Janet Metcalfe

Authors
  1. Brady Butterfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet Metcalfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet Metcalfe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Butterfield, B., Metcalfe, J. The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition Learning 1, 69–84 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6894-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6894-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation