tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/metacognition-19988/articlesMetacognition – The Conversation2021-11-10T17:45:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1707692021-11-10T17:45:46Z2021-11-10T17:45:46ZHow metacognition — thinking about thinking — can improve the mental-health crisis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430669/original/file-20211108-19-1fk57qs.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C10%2C6908%2C4213&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The science of metacognition studies how the mind can understand and control its own processes. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/depression-mental-health-psychology-therapy-mind-1570889686">(Shutterstock)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In these times of virtual meet-ups, negative news overload and widespread uncertainty, it’s fair to say it has been a tough time for our brains. If you’ve been feeling mentally subpar, you may be floating around the edges or caught in the middle of <a href="https://elemental.medium.com/the-cognition-crisis-a1482e889fcb">the cognition crisis</a>. And don’t worry, you’re not alone. </p>
<p>Our world is facing a global mental health crisis, one that is unique to modern times. Neuroscientist and neurologist Adam Gazzaley calls this a problem of “<a href="https://www.childrenandscreens.com/2018-conference/talks-and-panels/the-cognition-crisis-the-perils-and-promise-of-technology-and-the-brain/">ancient brains in a high-tech world</a>.” </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4000759">Our brains evolved for a very different environment</a>, and our biological instincts are struggling to keep pace with a sea of information, artificial stimulation and smartphone pings. This has contributed to <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/distracted-mind">a worldwide surge in anxiety, depression, addiction and other cognitive issues</a>.</p>
<p>As is often the case, <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/the-rise-of-the-machines-lessons-from-history-on-how-to-adapt/">technology comes first and society adapts second</a>. We are learning that surviving and thriving in the modern world requires a better understanding of our mind. This need for “cognition about cognition” brings us to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0021">the science of metacognition</a>. </p>
<h2>What is metacognition?</h2>
<p>Metacognition is a fancy word for what we all know and do hundreds of times each day. Ever tried to focus your attention? Attempted to regulate an emotion? Felt distracted and made the decision to put away your phone? Each is an example of recognizing a mental state and trying to control it.</p>
<p>Metacognition <a href="https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/">involves the scientific study of how</a> the mind can be aware of, and control, its own activity. Understanding how the mind works gives us insight into how we can use it better — an instructional how-to guide tailored to our personal psyches. </p>
<p>For example, we all engage with our immune systems each day. We have a vague understanding of why we should wash our hands, wipe the kitchen counter and wear a mask while chatting with people indoors. Yet the science of immunology has given us a deeper understanding of our personal immune system and we can, in turn, use this knowledge to combat a global pandemic. </p>
<p>In a similar sense, the science of metacognition offers a more profound knowledge of how the mind can understand and control its own processes. It is through this growing body of research that we hope to develop the tools to overcome our present mental health crisis.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An illustration of a woman with her eyes closed with a cloudy background shows a watering can watering her 'brain' which is actually depicted by flowers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431124/original/file-20211109-25-itp9ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We exercise and buy ergonomic chairs for our bodies, it’s time we take the same care of our minds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The quiet growth of metacognitive research</h2>
<p>A unique side effect of modern technology is that apps, games, social media and online content can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106422">hijack the learning pathways of the human brain</a>. As a result, we’re increasingly captive to compulsive behaviours, attention issues and emotional problems. </p>
<p>The pandemic has poured gasoline on this crisis. It has forced many people into social isolation and contributed to an even greater reliance on devices for social interaction and entertainment. </p>
<p>This has added to the global tsunami of <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression">debilitating mental health issues</a>, affecting over half a billion people with <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28058091">a financial toll in the trillions</a>.</p>
<p>But there is good news: the quiet growth of metacognitive research. </p>
<p>Decades of empirical studies have shown that metacognition is effective at decreasing <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24494136">addictive behaviours</a> and improving <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/48516003">emotional well-being</a>. Metacognitive training has demonstrated significant benefits in <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02211">therapy</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n10p42">education</a> and even <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/4/2/18/htm">business</a>. Particularly effective are the tools for helping people engage with their own thoughts and emotions in <a href="https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/cognitive-behavioural-therapy">cognitive behavioural therapy</a>.</p>
<p>Metacognition is a fuzzy concept. One handy metaphor is to think of the brain as having both software and hardware. The software is our thoughts, feelings and conversations with others; the hardware is the neurons and connections between them. We are only beginning to understand how these two interact. So when something goes wrong in our brain, we’re uncertain of how to fix it. Fortunately, progress has been made at clarifying this subject using computation.</p>
<h2>The successes of metacognitive therapy</h2>
<p>Computer simulations of cognition are a large focus of the <a href="http://cognitivemodelinglab.com/">Cognitive Modeling Lab at Carleton University</a> where I work as a researcher while pursuing a PhD in cognitive science. The theme of my research is the use of computational modelling to clarify metacognition. Metacognitive strategies can be thought of as a kind of mental software that can help to improve our cognitive functioning. </p>
<p>From my experience, it is worth looking at the successes of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30487770">metacognitive therapy</a>. It is unique in the sense that it involves the development of beneficial <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0000218-021">metacognitive <em>beliefs</em></a>. In many cases, it has shown to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22273">more effective than cognitive behavioural therapy</a>, another dominant approach taken by therapists. </p>
<p>For example, it can be helpful for someone to believe “I can direct my thoughts and emotions, and it is beneficial for me.” Believing in this possibility is a necessary precursor to action. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.05.018">Metacognitive therapy focuses on building this foundation</a>, and it’s from this firm grounding that people can reach for the specific tools of metacognition. </p>
<p>We are already aware of many of these tools. And yet our practical minds require evidence before committing to them. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22047">improving of attention</a> through <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700489">mental training</a> or <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-01742-011">meditation practice</a> works. Likewise, the strategies offered by <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-02305-005">cognitive behavioural therapy</a> are among the most effective for learning <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-ar/Cognitive+Behavior+Therapy%3A+Applying+Empirically+Supported+Techniques+in+Your+Practice%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780470227787">emotional regulation</a>. Particularly useful is the practice of “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-005-0018-6">detached mindfulness</a>” for treating <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1793901">depression</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800902833770">anxiety</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000340">Memory strategies</a> have also shown to be productive, including the famous <a href="https://bigthink.com/health/a-memory-palace-to-aid-in-neural-plasticity-can-increase-memory/">mind palace technique</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man is sitting on a couch with his head leaned back against the sofa." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431126/original/file-20211109-21-17xl2dd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Metacognition is effective at decreasing addictive behaviours and increasing emotional well-being.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>It’s time we take care of our minds</h2>
<p>Overcoming the cognition crisis partly depends on getting around our mind’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359">automatic pleasure-seeking</a>. Internally, we can avoid falling into the trap of instant gratification by being mindful of the information and entertainment we consume. Externally, we can craft a physical environment that improves our efficiency and mental welfare. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2014/dec/17/internet-restriction-apps-productivity">Distraction blocking software</a> offers just one example of how to do this. </p>
<p>We exercise, control what we eat and buy ergonomic desk chairs to take care of our bodies — it’s long past time we take the same care of our minds. There are so many evidence-based actions we can take to design a personalized toolkit of mental habits and strategies. Doing so will allow us to be more deliberate with our thoughts, attention and emotions, which can then improve every aspect of our lives.</p>
<p>Just as human health depends on mastering our own physical systems, the future of cognition depends on understanding and controlling our own psychological states. Solving the cognition crisis requires we get smart about our own minds, and there’s never been a more vital time to do that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170769/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Conway-Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Solving the cognition crisis requires we get smart about our own minds, and there’s never been a more vital time to do that.Brendan Conway-Smith, PhD Candidate, Cognitive Science Contract Instructor, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1679382021-10-03T17:06:32Z2021-10-03T17:06:32ZWhat happens when your brain looks at itself?<p>In 1884, while attempting to define the limits of human perception, <a href="https://philarchive.org/archive/PEIOSD">Charles Pierce and Joseph Jastrow</a> discovered something else: the limits of our insight into ourselves.</p>
<p>Participants in their experiments systematically under-rated their ability to correctly judge their own sensations, which Pierce and Jastrow offered as an explanation of “the insight of females as well as certain ‘telepathic’ phenomena”. These particular implications have thankfully been left behind (along with the conceptual relationship between telepathy and female insight). But by the late 1970s this approach of asking participants to rate their own performance had emerged as its own field of research: the study of <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Metacognition-and-Cognitive-Monitoring%3A-A-New-Area-Flavell/ee652f0f63ed5b0cfe0af4cb4ea76b2ecf790c8d">“metacognition”</a>.</p>
<p>Broadly, this ability to self-reflect and think about our own thoughts allows us to feel more or less confident in our decisions: we can act decisively when we’re confident we are correct, or be more cautious after we feel we’ve made an error.</p>
<p>This affects all aspects of our behaviour, from long-term abstract influences such as defining our life goals, to the basic influences of judging our own sensations (what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch).</p>
<p>We aren’t always good at metacognition. Some people are in general over-confident, some are under-confident and most people will occasionally feel very confident about a bad choice.</p>
<p>Metacognition is known to develop through childhood and adolescence, and poor metacognition has been implicated in several <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/article/abs/dysfunctional-metacognition-across-psychopathologies-a-metaanalytic-review/3EB4D6C4B21547750252ED1C85FD88A2">psychiatric disorders</a>.</p>
<p>It’s clear that we need to develop <a href="https://childmind.org/article/how-metacognition-can-help-kids/">educational tools</a> and <a href="https://mct-institute.co.uk/">treatments</a> to improve metacognition. But we are still far from fully understanding how it works.</p>
<h2>How should the brain look at itself?</h2>
<p>In order to think about your own thoughts, your brain effectively has to look at itself.</p>
<p>In theory, any time some of the hundreds of billions of cells in the brain get together and achieve a thought, feeling, or action, they also report how well they did it. All brain processes are monitored and evaluated, which gives rise to metacognition. One of the big questions is: how?</p>
<p>In our lab we study metacognition in its most basic form, our ability to judge our own sensations.</p>
<p>We still use similar methods to Pierce and Jastrow. In a typical experiment, we will show participants an image and ask them to make a simple decision about what they see, then rate how confident they are that they made the correct choice. As a simple example, we could show them an almost vertical line and ask them to judge whether it is tilted to the left or right. The participant should feel more confident when they feel they do not need to look back at the line to check that they’ve made the correct choice.</p>
<p>We call this “decision evidence”. Just like in a court a jury will decide if there is enough evidence to convict a criminal, the brain decides if there is enough evidence to be confident in a choice.</p>
<p>This is actually a big problem for studying what happens in the brain when people feel more compared to less confident, because a difference in confidence is also a difference in decision evidence. If we find a difference in brain activity between high vs low confidence, this could actually be due to more vs less evidence (the line is perceived more vs less tilted).</p>
<p>We need to separate the brain activity is related to the process of judging the tilt of the line from the brain activity related to feeling confident in judging that tilt.</p>
<h2>Separating confidence from decision evidence</h2>
<p>We recently <a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/68491">found a way to distinguish between these processes</a>, by separating them in time. In the experiment, we measured participants’ brain activity as they made decisions about a whole sequence of images shown one after the other.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421136/original/file-20210914-27-1hpoy05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The task at hand in our experiment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tarryn XYZ</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We were able to see what happens in the brain as participants viewed the images and came to their decision. Sometimes, participants committed to their decision before all of the images had been shown. In this case, we saw the activity related to making the decision come to a halt. But some activity continued.</p>
<p>Even though participants made their decision early, they still checked the additional images and used them to rate their confidence. In these cases, the brain activity for making the decision is finished, so it can’t get mixed up with the activity related to confidence.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421137/original/file-20210914-15-18a4bvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The brain activity during the task is localized in the cortex.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tarry XYZ</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our first finding agreed with a lot of previous research: we found activity related to confidence in the areas of the brain that are also associated with goal-driven behaviour.</p>
<p>But in closely examining this brain activity, trying to address the question of how the brain looks at itself, we came across a different question: when?</p>
<h2>Extreme micro-management</h2>
<p>The default view of metacognition is that you make your decision first, then you check how much evidence you have to feel confident – first you think, then you think about thinking. But when we examined the pattern of brain activity related to confidence, we found it evolved even before participants made their decision.</p>
<p>This is like counting your chickens before they’ve hatched. The brain is the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/why-your-brain-is-not-a-computer-neuroscience-neural-networks-consciousness">most efficient computer</a> we know of, so it’s odd to think it would do something so unnecessary.</p>
<p>The default view suggests a large role of metacognition in moderating future behaviour: our subsequent actions are influenced by how confident we are in our decisions, thoughts, and feelings, and we use low confidence to learn and improve in the future.</p>
<p>But there’s an additional possibility: we could use confidence while we deliberate to know if we should seek out more evidence or if we have enough to commit to a decision.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15561-w">separate experiment</a>, we indeed found that people who are better at metacognition are also better at knowing when to stop deliberating and commit to a decision. This indicates that the brain could be continuously looking at itself, monitoring and evaluating its processes in order to control its efficiency; a system of extreme micro-management.</p>
<p>More than 130 years after Pierce and Jastrow first questioned the role of metacognition we are still discovering new ways this kind of self-reflection is important. In doing so, we are also discovering more about the brain and its amazing ability to look at itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167938/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pascal Mamassian has received funding from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Valentin Wyart has received funding from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and the European Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tarryn Balsdon ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>For each decision we make, we assign a certain level of confidence. How does the brain decide how much?Tarryn Balsdon, Postdoctoral researcher, École normale supérieure (ENS) – PSLPascal Mamassian, chercheur CNRS en psychologie expérimentale, École normale supérieure (ENS) – PSLValentin Wyart, Directeur de recherche en neurosciences, InsermLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945682018-07-19T21:26:07Z2018-07-19T21:26:07ZPlay games with your kids this summer to boost their brains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226385/original/file-20180705-122271-p4aw9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many board games strengthen the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex of the brains of players. This results in improved cognitive functions such as IQ, memory, information retention and problem-solving.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Research shows that playing games can enhance our personal, social and emotional well-being, as well as our mental acuity. </p>
<p>A study conducted at Harvard Medical School in 2017 points out that <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-pursuit-of-happiness">loneliness can be more detrimental to health than smoking</a>. Happiness, on the other hand, is strongly correlated with close relationships with family members and friends.</p>
<p>Playing both board games and video games with family members provide opportunities to get together and develop these relationships. They stimulate players physically, mentally and emotionally. </p>
<p>Games have also been found to change the brain structurally and functionally, according to many scientific studies. They can promote neurogenesis — the growth of new neurons in the brains. They can also promote neuroplasticity — changes in neural pathways and synapses that lead to structural changes in the brain. </p>
<p>These changes result in <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/video-gaming-can-increase-brain-size-and-connectivity">new brain cells and better connectivity among the different brain regions</a>, thus enhancing mental skills such as memory, attention span, spatial intelligence, language learning ability and coordination. </p>
<h2>Enthusiasm, stress reduction, calmness</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788340">A 2017 study</a> published in <em>Frontiers in Human Neuroscience</em> showed that experienced players of the board game <em>Baduk</em>, or <em>Go</em>, had increased gray matter in the <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2014/6/11/know-your-brain-nucleus-accumbens">nucleus accumbens</a> and decreased gray matter in <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2-minute-neuroscience-amygdala?rq=amygdala">the amygdala</a>, as compared to novices. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226381/original/file-20180705-122259-h8j0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Games can improve memory and decision making skills.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The nucleus accumbens is an area of the brain responsible for <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2014/6/11/know-your-brain-nucleus-accumbens">processing environmental stimuli related to rewarding or unpleasant experiences</a>. Its functioning is based on the neurotransmitters dopamine, which promotes desire, and serotonin, which promotes satiety and inhibition. </p>
<p>Increase in gray matter in the nucleus accumbens leads to more positive experiences and enthusiasm.</p>
<p>The amygdala is an almond-shaped set of neurons located deep in the brain’s medial temporal lobe. It is <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/amygdala.htm">part of the limbic system and responsible for processing emotions</a>. A decrease in gray matter in the amygdala <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2840837/">leads to stress reduction and increased calmness</a>. </p>
<h2>Better decision-making</h2>
<p>Research also shows that action video game experts have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09763#affil-auth">more grey matter and enhanced functional connectivity in the insula subregions of their brains</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2013/05/what-is-insula">The insula</a> is a small portion of the cerebral cortex, responsible for self-awareness and present moment awareness. Increase in gray matter in the insula of the brain facilitates better decision-making. </p>
<p>Many board games also strengthen <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2014/5/23/know-your-brain-hippocampus?rq=hippocampus">the hippocampus</a> and <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2014/5/16/know-your-brain-prefrontal-cortex">prefrontal cortex</a> of the brains of players. <a href="http://www.psy.cmu.edu/%7Esiegler/2014-Laski-Siegler.pdf">This results in improved cognitive functions</a> such as IQ, memory, information retention and problem-solving.</p>
<p>Human brains have two hippocampi, located in each of the temporal lobes below the cerebral cortex. These are mainly responsible for memory consolidation along with spatial navigation and orientation. An increase in gray matter in the hippocampus is desired <a href="https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2014/5/23/know-your-brain-hippocampus?rq=hippocampus">for better memory and for prevention of dementia</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226387/original/file-20180705-122253-1hrn02n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research shows playing video games with family or friends can reduce the risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s among adults.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The prefrontal cortex is located at the very front of the brain and is responsible for performing “executive functions” such as reason, logic, problem-solving, planning, memory, directing attention, developing and pursuing goals and inhibiting counterproductive impulses. </p>
<h2>Improving memory</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00592">A study published in <em>Frontier Human Neuroscience</em></a> in 2015 documented the results of using a “Virtual Week (VW)” training game with older adults. This was a computerized game that simulated the schedule of a day on the circuits of the board, engaging participants in events such as choosing what to eat for meals or how to interact with others. The game also asked them to remember to do things on time — for example to take medication at breakfast, or deliver a message to colleagues. </p>
<p>Participants were trained to play the game for 12 sessions of one hour, over a period of a month. This resulted in cognitive and neural plasticity, improving the “prospective memory” of the participants — the ability to remember and successfully execute intentions and planned activities.</p>
<p>Playing collaborative strategic board games in an informal and interactional context has also been found <a href="http://www.dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011040105">to improve computational thinking</a> — including skills such as conditional logic, distributed processing, debugging, simulation and algorithm building. </p>
<h2>Reducing mental problems</h2>
<p>Research has also found that <a href="https://www.mpg.de/research/video-games-brain">playing video games with family or friends can reduce the risk of mental health problems</a> such as schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s among adults. </p>
<p>One study, published in 2014 in the <em>American Psychological Association</em> also reported that <a href="http://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/dyslexia.aspx">playing video games could help children with dyslexia</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226382/original/file-20180705-122277-bhwjc7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It is important to strike a balance between video games and board games for kids.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Then benefits of playing games can be increased by metacognition (thinking about thinking) and meditation sessions. Although there is ample research evidence to show that playing board and video games substantially affect the brain positively, adults need to stimulate metacognition in children — encouraging them to explain why they made certain decisions during the game. </p>
<p>This type of <a href="https://www.parentingscience.com/board-games-for-kids.html">probing can make video and board games more powerful tools</a> for developing mental acuity among kids. </p>
<p>Combining game sessions with short meditation sessions may also <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-many-benefits-of-meditation-in-the-classroom-94566">enhance the quality of time spent together with family and friends</a> in a purposeful, joyous manner. </p>
<h2>Balance board games and video games</h2>
<p>Games do come with many cognitive benefits but striking a balance is the key. Too much of anything can be detrimental. </p>
<p>Research shows that kids need to be encouraged to participate in social games as well as instructional and video games, but the negative consequences of getting addicted to these should also be explained to them. </p>
<p>As adults also we need to keep a watch on how much time we spend playing games, and on the type of games played.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94568/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Kaufman receives funding from the AGE-WELL National Centre of Excellence Network in Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neha Shivhare does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From dyslexia, to dementia to schizophrenia, there is evidence that playing games can help, while boosting family connections and emotional wellbeing.Neha Shivhare, Assistant Professor, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, India; Visiting Fellow, Simon Fraser UniversityDavid Kaufman, Professor of Education, Simon Fraser UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778252017-06-06T00:25:26Z2017-06-06T00:25:26ZIllusions influence our predictions about how well we’ll remember in the future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171718/original/file-20170531-23531-u3e0ms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">OK, I've got this....</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/illinoisspringfield/11210575433">Illinois Springfield</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every day we make decisions based on how we think our memory works. A student decides how long to study for an exam. A shopper decides whether or not to make a grocery list. An FBI director decides whether to write the contents of a concerning conversation in a memo or to trust he would never forget such critical details.</p>
<p>Yet too often we find ourselves wishing we had studied harder or written down a detail we were previously convinced we would remember. Why does this happen? </p>
<p>The answer may lie in the study of metamemory illusions – situations that lead people to consistently overestimate or underestimate their future memory of something. The way information is presented influences how well people predict they’ll remember it. In our research, we test how subtle cues, such as volume, influence people’s judgments about memory.</p>
<h2>Easy to take in, easy to remember?</h2>
<p>Psychologists have identified several factors that make people incorrectly gauge how good their memory will be. For example, people overestimate their memory for information <a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.550">presented at a loud volume</a>. Similarly, people judge information presented in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684">very large or very clear font as more memorable</a> than information presented in small or difficult-to-read font.</p>
<p>However, volume, font size and font clarity actually have little to no effect on memory. What each of these factors share is that they presumably make the information easier to process – literally easier to hear or read. This led to the theory that people unknowingly base their memory judgments on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023719">how easy it was to process the information</a> when they learned it. The idea is that if you don’t have to strain in the first place to read a nicely laid out chunk of text, for instance, you expect that it will be easy to recall later.</p>
<p>It’s not necessarily a bad idea to use ease of processing as a shortcut to determine how well you’re learning. The two often do go hand-in-hand, with many of the factors making something easy to process also related to memory.</p>
<p>For example, when someone reads a book a second time, she can read it faster and with less effort; there’s an increased ease of processing. Repetition – reading the book a second time – also improves memory for the book’s contents. Thus, the increased ease of processing coincides with an increase in memory, in this case. But it’s the repetition and not the ease of processing itself that improved memory.</p>
<p>Likewise, if new details fit with what someone already knows, it makes processing the new information easier and also makes recalling it easier. Thus, ease of learning is often, but not always, a good indicator of future memory. </p>
<h2>Investigating the illusion</h2>
<p>However, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6">recent research challenges the idea</a> that people rely on ease of processing to judge their future memory. Researchers found that many people believe that volume and font size affect memory without actually hearing or reading the words beforehand. According to this view, ease of processing in the moment is not related to memory judgments at all – those judgments simply reflect people’s general beliefs about how memory works. That is, people predict that they will remember more loud words because they believe that volume actually affects memory. </p>
<p>So do people base their memory judgments off of ease of processing or beliefs about memory? To test these two different theories, we devised a study to pit them against each other.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171885/original/file-20170601-25664-180ijxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If you crank it up, will you remember it better?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/black-volume-control-knob-closeup-135538982">Alexey Laputin via Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We told 136 college students they would hear a series of words, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000332">some loud, others quiet</a>. Before playing any words, we asked students to guess the percentages of loud and quiet words they would remember. When students indicate they’ll recall more loud words, it suggests a general belief about volume affecting memory.</p>
<p>Then students heard each word, one at a time. Immediately after the actual experience of hearing it (at whichever volume), they rated how likely they were to remember each word. </p>
<p>We found that students who already believed beforehand that loud words would be remembered better fell victim to the illusion: they gave much higher future-recall ratings to each loud word after it was presented. However, many students who did not believe that volume had any effect on memory still fell victim to this illusion – but to a lesser extent. Thus, it appears that people use a combination of both preexisting beliefs and ease of processing when making memory judgments. </p>
<p>So what do our results say about the accuracy of people’s memory predictions?</p>
<p>Understanding that volume itself will not influence memory helps people make realistic predictions. Even if you realize that, though, processing ease still induces an illusion.</p>
<p>Since ease of processing often does indicate better later memory, it’s not completely wrong to rely on it.</p>
<p>But be wary whether the processing ease comes from the information itself, indicating your high level of learning, or comes from arbitrary external factors like volume. If you’re an FBI director, or anyone else needing to remember something really important, take some extra time learning it or write it down, just to be safe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77825/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beatrice Kuhlmann receives funding from the Baden-Wurttemberg Ministry of Arts, Sciences, and Research and the German Research Foundation. Note that this funding is not for her research discussed here. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David J. Frank does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Feel like something will be easy to remember? Your prediction may be influenced by how clearly the information was presented in the first place.David J. Frank, Postdoctoral Scholar in Psychology, Case Western Reserve UniversityBeatrice G. Kuhlmann, Assistant Professor of Cognitive Psychology, University of MannheimLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/746902017-03-29T19:21:16Z2017-03-29T19:21:16ZWorried about shark attacks or terrorism? Here’s how to think about the real risk of rare events<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162588/original/image-20170327-3268-1819ykz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How risky is it to swim?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Christine Cabalo/Wikimedia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Statistics is a useful tool for understanding the patterns in the world around us. But our intuition often lets us down when it comes to interpreting those patterns. In this series we look at some of the common mistakes we make and how to avoid them when thinking about <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/statistics-probability-and-risk-37151">statistics, probability and risk</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The world can feel like a scary place. </p>
<p>Today, Australia’s National Terrorism Threat Level is “<a href="https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Securityandyourcommunity/Pages/National-Terrorism-Threat-Advisory-System.aspx">Probable</a>”. Shark attacks are on the rise; the number of people attacked by sharks in 2000-2009 has almost doubled since <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/MF10181">1990-1999</a>. Travellers are at a high risk of getting the Zika virus in places where the disease is <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-zika-factsheet-basics.htm#toc03">present</a>, such as Brazil and Mexico. </p>
<p>However, despite their tragic outcomes, these events are all extremely rare. </p>
<p>Since 1996, only eight people have been killed by terrorism attacks in <a href="http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=1996&end_yearonly=2015&dtp2=all&country=14&charttype=line&chart=overtime&expanded=no&ob=TotalNumberOfFatalities&od=desc#results-table">Australia</a>. There have been 186 shark attacks in the 20 years from <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/MF10181">1990 to 2009</a>. Best estimates indicate that only 1.8 people for each million tourists would have <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11760228/zika-virus-risk-rio-olympics-2016">contracted Zika at the Rio Olympics</a>. </p>
<p>To be fair, it is extremely difficult to judge the incidence of rare events. So how should we think about these risks?</p>
<h2>Default to safe</h2>
<p>Decision scientists study rare events by bringing people into the lab and asking them to make choices. For example, in their Nobel Prize-winning work, researchers Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky had people <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/%7Ekahneman/docs/Publications/prospect_theory.pdf">make choices between two options</a>: one safe, one risky. </p>
<p>A typical choice might involve a safe option where you’d walk away with $5, guaranteed. Alternatively, you could choose to take a gamble and receive $15 with 90% probability. However, if you lost the gamble, you would have to pay $35. </p>
<p>If you’d just take the $5, then you’re not alone. Despite the gamble being clearly better than taking $5, in terms of what you would win on average (0.9 x $15 – 0.1 x $35 = $10), the loss of $35 looms so large in the mind that many of us tend to choose the safe option.</p>
<p>In this scenario, the loss of $35 is a relatively rare event: it will only occur 10% of the time. Yet we treat the rare event as if it were much more likely to occur than in reality. Kahneman and Tversky termed this the “overweighting” of small probabilities.</p>
<p>Of course, real-world rare events, such as disease control, shark attacks and terrorism threats, are much more complex than this fictitious gamble. But from a purely statistical point of view, it may be that we are disproportionately worried about such events, given their rarity. </p>
<p>For example, a poll conducted by Chapman University in the United States suggests that 38.5% of people were “afraid” or “very afraid” of being a victim of <a href="https://qz.com/898207/the-psychology-of-why-americans-are-more-scared-of-terrorism-than-guns-though-guns-are-3210-times-likelier-to-kill-them/">terrorism</a>. This is despite the fact that only 71 people in the US were killed by terrorism between <a href="https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/#americas-layered-defenses">2005 and 2015</a>. To put that into perspective, PolitiFact reports that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/">301,797 people have died from gun violence</a> in the US over a similar period.</p>
<p>So is it fear that drives us to believe that rare events are likely to happen?</p>
<p>According to David Landy, a researcher at Indiana University, who spoke on this very issue at the 2016 meeting of the <a href="http://www.sjdm.org/">Society for Judgment and Decision Making</a>, the answer is no. </p>
<p>One question in Landy’s survey asked people to estimate the proportion of the US population that was Muslim. The true proportion is slightly less than 1%. People’s estimates tended to be <a href="http://www.sjdm.org/programs/2016-program.pdf">higher</a>, at around 10%. </p>
<p>It is typically the case that people overestimate the population of Muslims in the <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/most-americans-overestimate-muslim-population-17x-poll-shows-n696071">US</a>. The overestimate is often interpreted in terms of fear. The idea is that people are more likely to pay attention to things that scare them, and this leads them to believe they are more common than they really are.</p>
<p>The “fear” explanation is intuitively plausible, but it may not be true. In a critical comparison, Landy also asked about the probability of other events that also had a small probability, but would be unlikely to make people scared (such as what proportion of the US population had served in the military). </p>
<p>It turned out that people also overestimated the probability of these rare but uninteresting events. In fact, the degree to which they overestimated these other events was practically identical to how much they overestimated the population of Muslims. </p>
<p>Landy’s result suggests that we simply have trouble in thinking about small probabilities, regardless of the topic. It may not be that some people overestimate the proportion of Muslims out of fear. Rather, it seems that we will overestimate the incidence of any rare event. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162586/original/image-20170327-3303-9wjrd7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are you worried about getting struck?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How to think about rare events</h2>
<p>So how should we think about and respond to rare events? </p>
<p>One remedy might be to use what some researchers refer to as “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition">metacognitive awareness</a>”. This is being aware of how cognitive processes, like memory, work when we try to think about and estimate the frequency with which things happen. </p>
<p>One metacognitive cue you might use is how easy it is to remember a particular event, such as hearing about shark attacks. But simply reading-off the ease of recall is likely to be <a href="http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Tversky_Kahneman_1974.pdf">misleading</a>. This is because your memory is biased by positive instances: going swimming and not being attacked by sharks is not surprising so it is not particularly memorable.</p>
<p>This failure of memory to deliver representative samples of evidence suggests a need to think carefully, not only about the bias in memory retrieval, but also in the samples available to us in the world. </p>
<p>Perversely, it suggests that when you want to work out how rare an event is (and an appropriate response), you should try to think about all the times it didn’t happen (negative instances) rather than those when it did!</p>
<p>So next time you are at the beach and contemplating taking a dip, just think of the millions of swimmers who have never been attacked by a shark, and <em>not</em> the relatively few who have.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74690/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Donkin receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Navarro receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>We naturally overestimate the risk of rare events, like shark attacks or terrorism. But there are things you can do to think more rationally about the real risk.Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology, UNSW SydneyChris Donkin, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, UNSW SydneyDan Navarro, Associate Professor of Cognitive Science, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/567262016-04-25T14:05:07Z2016-04-25T14:05:07ZThere are also drawbacks to being bilingual<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119879/original/image-20160422-17417-2ktxto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">noche</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/speaking-in-tongues-the-many-benefits-of-bilingualism-49842">ability to speak more than one language</a> certainly has its perks. It enables you to work in another country, for example, interact with people while travelling, or consume foreign media. </p>
<p>Bilingualism is very common – <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XgRum7AWOoUC&lpg=PP1&dq=bilingualism%20grosjean&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false">current estimates</a> are that more than half of the world’s population is bilingual and that this <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NhW7IkefMbcC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20handbook%20of%20bilingualism%20bhatia&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false">prevalence is rising</a>.</p>
<p>Cognitive psychologists have been interested in how bilingualism shapes the mind for almost a century. There are those who <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=150193&fileId=S1366728998000133">suggest</a> that in order to speak in one language, bilinguals have to suppress the influence of the other. <a href="http://www.yumingschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bilingualism.-The-good-the-bad-and-the-indifferent.pdf">Research from the past three decades</a> has argued that this unique form of language processing “trains the brain” in the use of non-verbal abilities known as “<a href="http://fulbright.uark.edu/departments/world-languages/_resources/multitasking.pdf">executive functions</a>” such as ignoring irrelevant information or shifting attention. </p>
<p>Bilinguals <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raymond_Klein/publication/8485256_Bilingualism_aging_and_cognitive_control_evidence_from_the_Simon_task/links/02e7e5162c0ba8be64000000.pdf">of different ages and cultural backgrounds</a> have been shown to be faster and more accurate than their monolingual peers when performing cognitive tasks demanding these abilities. Furthermore, it has been argued that bilingualism may lead to a <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.383.6808&rep=rep1&type=pdf">delayed onset of symptoms associated with dementia</a>.</p>
<p>But the scientific community recently has become increasingly <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945215001380">sceptical</a> of the bilingual advantage hypothesis. One of the main points of criticism is that differences between monolinguals and bilinguals when it comes to executive function are not always apparent. This has generated a heated debate, especially in the <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cortex/media-coverage/do-bilingual-people-have-a-cognitive-advantage/">Bilingualism Forum</a> of the <a href="http://www.journals.elsevier.com/cortex/">scientific journal Cortex</a>, about whether bilingualism is associated with cognitive advantages or not.</p>
<h2>Fresh challenge</h2>
<p>It appears that research on bilingualism is at a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945215003007">turning point</a>. We need to pursue a new approach to understand, beyond those individual examples of executive functions, how the bilingual mind works. We have attempted to address this challenge by testing whether bilinguals and monolinguals differ in terms of how accurately they can assess their own performance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119862/original/image-20160422-17409-18gl70p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Might come in handy in parts of Wales.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">FatManPhoto</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This ability is called metacognition and is associated with, but separate from, other areas where bilinguals have been shown to have an advantage. Surprisingly, however, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300361">we found</a> that bilinguals had less insight into their performance than their monolingual peers. </p>
<h2>Joining the dots</h2>
<p>In an effort to find out whether bilinguals also display advantages in other cognitive abilities (beyond executive function), we evaluated metacognitive processing in young adult monolinguals and bilinguals. Metacognition is the ability to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232599909_Metacognition_and_Cognitive_Monitoring_A_New_Area_of_Cognitive-Developmental_Inquiry">evaluate one’s own cognitive performance</a> or simply to have “thoughts about thoughts”. </p>
<p>This ability is a crucial function of everyday life, when we have to make decisions where the outcomes are not immediate. For example, when an entrepreneur reviews their company’s performance, they need to take into account a variety of factors – including, for example, revenues and expenses – in order to evaluate whether the company is doing well. Confidence in their ideas and performance can be the determining factor in whether they decide to keep investing time in their company or give up and apply for another job (the so-called “<a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/362/1481/933.short">exploitation exploration trade-off</a>”).</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300361">our research</a>, we presented participants with a situation in which they had to observe two circles on a screen and guess which one contained more dots. Sometimes the difference was obvious, making the decision easy, while at other times the decision was very difficult (for example, one circle contained 50 dots and the other 49). Participants were then asked to determine how confident they were in their decision on a scale from less to more confident than normal.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=182&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=182&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116086/original/image-20160322-32309-d3mdb0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=182&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Illustration of the metacognition paradigm employed by Folke et al., 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Folkes et al, 2016</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Over the course of two experiments, we found that bilinguals and monolinguals were equally likely to choose the circle containing the highest number of dots. However, monolinguals were better able than bilinguals to discriminate between when they were right and when they were wrong. In other words, bilinguals had less insight into their performance than monolinguals. This went against our initial predictions, as we expected to find a bilingual advantage in metacognitive processing. These results indicate that bilingualism may be associated with cognitive disadvantages as well as benefits.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.anglia.ac.uk/science-and-technology/research/our-research-institutes-and-groups/brain-and-cognition-research-group/language-and-cognition">Multilanguage & Cognition lab</a> (MULTAC) at Anglia Ruskin University is currently undertaking a three-year project funded by the <a href="https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/">Leverhulme Trust</a> to enhance our understanding of the bilingual mind. </p>
<p>The lab has already published evidence of cognitive advantages associated with bilingualism, suggesting that bilinguals are better at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486347/">filtering out verbal interference</a> as well as visual attention, specifically spotting the difference in a <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10167021&fileId=S1366728915000917">visuo-spatial working memory task</a>.</p>
<p>This new research indicates that bilingual people may experience a disadvantage in metacognition. We hope that this new direction in bilingualism research will encourage further attention and enable us to resolve theoretical debate through the adoption of open-minded, empirically driven exploration of cognitive effects (both positive and negative) that may be associated with learning more than one language.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56726/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The research mentioned in this article was funded by the Leverhulme Trust, grant RPG-2015-024.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tomas Folke receives funding from Economics and Social Sciences Research Council.</span></em></p>Research suggests that bilinguals have less insight into the way they perform tasks than people who only speak one language.Julia Ouzia, PhD candidate in cognitive psychology, Anglia Ruskin UniversityTomas Folke, PhD candidate, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/433132015-09-03T10:05:41Z2015-09-03T10:05:41ZShould you rely on first instincts when answering a multiple choice exam?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93549/original/image-20150901-13438-x6vzox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">First instincts may not always be correct.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/83633410@N07/7658219802/in/photolist-cEJnWs-9wpbUi-9UnRWS-cEJJqW-4Qvmuu-anduxr-7ey4aK-CyG5o-ni3Aga-o7q4TJ-i553f9-4YiSdt-fZrMV-6Xw3cw-4U3AAc-nzfe54-tHZwv-fcBto-xLUqv-Epy1J-8KsHQi-7VtN6i-4R579t-nzfebX-8KvLgL-4MZEcs-7w7j1J-xCrLY8-fGgJPM-8rMsTy-qqLtzC-nDoKG8-dRAjcg-epLLnv-efpydB-mckoua-5QngLs-bZ7Xvh-bZ3uRh-h6sMXB-4U3zmT-6RdJzz-ibSrGF-6YD2sU-bioxbK-9Uk51H-7Pm5o9-7BVsM-7GEEn9-7GEEiN">PROCollegeDegrees360</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Often, you’ll hear people say that you should “trust your instincts” when making decisions. But are first instincts always the best? </p>
<p>Psychological research has shown many times that no, they are often no better – <a href="http://psych.colorado.edu/%7Evanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kuger_1stinstinct.pdf">any in many cases worse</a> – than a revision or change. Despite enormous popular belief that first instincts are special, dozens of experiments have found that they are not.</p>
<p>While that may be a useful fact to bring up in an academic discussion, anyone who has ever made a decision in real life will undoubtedly reply:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But I remember times when I made a correct choice, then changed my mind and was wrong. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This happens for two reasons: First, humans naturally have something called an <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942711?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">endowment bias</a>, where we feel strongly attached to things we already have (our first instinct, in this case).</p>
<p>We don’t want to give it up, and we feel especially bad when we give it up and it turns out later to be correct. We remember these instances vividly and thus they seem to be very common, even though all research shows that they are less common. </p>
<p>The second reason is more obvious: sometimes first instincts actually are correct. The problem is figuring out when to trust yourself and when to change course.</p>
<p>The solution may lie within the realm of “metacognition,” the ability to “think about thinking” and use those thoughts to monitor and control behavior.</p>
<p>I originally began exploring “metacognition” in <a href="http://www.psypost.org/2012/03/self-reflective-mind-in-animals-psychologists-report-on-continuing-advances-10644">rhesus monkeys</a>. They would be given various questions, some easy and some quite difficult, and had to either answer or report that they did not know. I was amazed at their robust ability to look into their own minds and “know when they did not know” the right answer. They were able to accurately judge whether they would get the question correct or incorrect. </p>
<p>I was equally amazed that my (human) undergraduate students sometimes seemed to lack the ability. They were always surprised at their exam grades; some would significantly overestimate their performance, while others underestimated it. They would also believe their first instincts were special, even when their own behaviors – successfully revising answers – showed otherwise.</p>
<p>Surely my students knew how well they performed on each question, and could thus figure out how well they’d done on the exam, right? Recently, my colleagues and I <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11409-015-9140-8#page-1">tested this</a> by studying students’ metacognition while they were taking exams. </p>
<h2>The experiment</h2>
<p>We asked the students to track their confidence on each response to a real multiple choice psychology exam, marking it either a “guess” or “known” to indicate how sure they were about their original answer. They also marked whether or not they revised that original response.</p>
<p>More often than not, the students’ revisions – changes from a first instinct to a new choice – resulted in a correct answer. And on questions that caused the most uncertainty, sticking with an initial response was a bad idea: they were wrong more than half the time. </p>
<p>Their “metacognition,” in the form of confidence ratings for each question, was an excellent predictor of whether they made the correct decision and thus whether or not they should change their response. In other words, they were able to tell, in the moment, whether or not they would get the question correct. And because they wrote down those accurate judgments, they could use them later when deciding to change their answer or not.</p>
<p>In a second experiment, we looked at sticking with original answers. </p>
<p>Again using metacognitive confidence ratings, this time on a 1-5 scale, students were able to identify the questions that they were mostly likely to get correct or incorrect.</p>
<p>Using those ratings as a guide, we found that when they chose to stick with an original instinct they were correct more often than not.</p>
<p>Thus, both revisions and first instincts were correct most of the time.</p>
<h2>Tracking feelings of confidence</h2>
<p>On the surface, that might seem like a contradiction. And it would be, if the only tools the students had in their arsenal were “always trust your instincts” or “always change your mind.”</p>
<p>But we gave them a slightly more sensitive tool, a written-down record of their metacognitive confidence, which allowed them to choose when to revise and when to stick. Everyone feels their level of confidence when they make a decision, but the problem is that we quickly forget this information when we move on to the next decision. </p>
<p>Because they rated their confidence for each question on paper, they could use those ratings instead of (notoriously faulty) memories.</p>
<p>Using this tool, they made more informed choices that helped them perform better.</p>
<p>But why take the time to record confidence levels for each individual question? If they know how they performed on each question, don’t they know how well they did at the end of the exam?</p>
<p>It turns out, no. </p>
<p>Despite being excellent at predicting their performance on each question during the exam, when we asked after the exam, students were very bad at judging how well they’d done.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93553/original/image-20150901-13443-12ug9wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How can students make more informed decisions?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wellingtoncollege/11204219443/in/photolist-i55y6i-i55yck-i55xKi-i54ZH3-i55y7F-i54S8p-5HDxMz-4B55g3-7exX6v-4mCQ7y-gkTDR8-7Ph7h2-rparyx-6C8rdW-7Ph67D-4PzQSR-8dshmS-8dp1ua-dBRxUc-dAW32n-cMw5BC-cMw5Lb-nhbUzr-bry6S4-8YRAxX-8YRB2g-8YRBdn-8YUA7d-8YRykx-8YRyYH-8YRCSn-8YUzkS-8YUxYq-8YUDdW-8YUGpy-8YUyxb-8YRC7a-8YUAFq-8YRvQH-8YRzu4-8YRzR6-8YUAWb-8YRy3H-8YUFT5-8YRxiX-8YUGWb-8YUzSA-8YRDqi-8YRBMg-8YUzAN">Wellington College</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’ll give you just one dramatic and disturbing example. We asked them, at the end of the first study I mentioned above, whether they thought a revised choice was more likely to be correct than a first instinct. </p>
<p>Despite the fact that their actual choices and ratings, moments earlier, clearly showed that revisions were better, the overwhelming majority of students falsely believed that their original choice would be the best. </p>
<p>That is the dramatic part. </p>
<p>The disturbing part is that an even larger majority reported that a professor or teacher – apparently unaware of the huge body of literature to the contrary – had specifically told them that first choices were mostly likely to be correct.</p>
<p>Thus, the key to knowing when to stick with your first instinct and when to change your mind is to track feelings of confidence during the moment you make the decision. </p>
<p>During college exams, both revising and sticking with original answers had the potential to result in more correct than incorrect answers. </p>
<p>Only the self-tracking of confidence levels predicted when each was more appropriate. By using that simple form of metacognition, students could better identify which questions to revise and which were better left alone.</p>
<h2>Making informed decisions</h2>
<p>Of course, this practice of tracking feelings is useful for more than just test-taking. Memory is <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v4/n3/abs/nrn1054.html">notoriously unreliable</a>, and we are subject to numerous fallacies and <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/schacterlab/files/schacter_american_psychologist_1999.pdf">biases</a>. </p>
<p>This leads to problems in almost every area of decision-making. Most of these problems stem from the fact that our beliefs about ourselves and our personal histories are usually formed long before or after a decision, not “in the moment.” </p>
<p>Upon reflection, things often seem much different than they actually were.</p>
<p>Tracking how you feel while initially making a decision can provide valuable information later, can help you make more informed choices and will better prepare you to revise your initial decision when necessary.</p>
<p>I would encourage all educators to consider these findings both while administering exams and while forming their own beliefs about how students learn and take tests. Like the students themselves, our reflective beliefs often differ from the actual experience.</p>
<p>Students benefit from a system that allows them to build metacognitive skill, and they will generally make better decisions if they use empirically validated information about their confidence rather than a folk belief or popular misconception. It is also relatively simple to do this during paper-based or electronic exams, so there is little cost.</p>
<p>Educators would, perhaps most importantly, be wary of giving advice based on their subjective beliefs or (almost certainly) unreliable memories, and instead be able to foster a useful skill based on memory and metacognition research.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43313/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin J Couchman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite the popular belief, your first instincts may not be correct.Justin J Couchman, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Albright CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.