sign in sign up
<<
Home , Memory, Metamemory

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 29 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of and

John Dunlosky, Robert A. Bjork

Evolution of

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 Janet Metcalfe Published online on: 28 May 2008

How to cite :- Janet Metcalfe. 28 May 2008, Evolution of Metacognition from: Handbook of Metamemory and Memory Routledge Accessed on: 29 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203805503.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 of ismetacognition. component form of consciousness. The elementary most form this of — aparticular strength adaptive evolved unique its has species —as human the animals, to other away,ments miles many or, monarchare butterfly, the poisonousthat eat to like foods to fly, tiny ability theraptors,move- tosee the or, such as like characteristics adaptive evolved have may species other whereas that is The appeal. considerable holds articulately espousedhas been view This to aphenomenological specific humans. is and that by moderns capability mental aspecial is nevertheless self-reflectivecapability this that to claim from Armstrong a is nonphysicaldisavowing soul, while analogue, (1968) The modern soul. disembodied to Rosenthal (1637/1999) toDescartes (see 2006) Augustine Harrison, a is there tosuppose that (2002) and tohave entity provoked force aspecial being as philosophers pelling early fromSt. somehow is that fabric, such able com- has tolookprocesses, at cognitive other our there cognitive is a thyself.”that looker,our The notion within “know embedded maxim, or the our in of as ourselves, “self” connectiontoour a special of consciousness bears kind this According toanumber of thinkers, beings. human to of consciousness unique kind toembody aparticular metacognition) was knowledge self-reflective because by metacognition cinated what we now (i.e., call actions. and self-control allow ofand their It is one that may confer on humans ability an to escape from being stimulus bound evolved capability. recently tobea very appears Thus, metacognition metacognition. of mereterms contingencies. conditioning beenshown No tohave has species other in beexplained can data have rats the that metacognition, Despite claims limited. are however, primates, Even these of metacognition. in shown capabilities evidence the It reviewed. concludedhave are is monkeys metacognition now three human that data on chapter. non- topic the is of Theempirical this capability this share animals have metacognition, evenemphasized when it is strictly by thinkers definedtheevolution in been consciousness, has of of goingmetacognition, human importance asThe it is backhere, hundredswhether any of other years. While it is clearIntroduction that people Janet Metcalfe Evolution Metacognition of Even before was recognized as a separate discipline, scholars were fas- were scholars discipline, separate a as recognized was psychology before Even 29 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 adaptive future responding. Such havethose responding. consciousness who may abenefit, to also future adaptive such an animal freeing value, adaptive its has own also able occurrences dent. toreflect on past Being from the one’s seemsself-evi- having constraints solely afferent stimuli by driven the than actions rather one’s able of events being in toforeseeadvantages evaluate and ’s eye beforehand of the stimulus The animals. toother fatal circumstances under to survive ancestors our allowed and allowing controlown behaviors reflective maytheirhave well over togain not ability do. This can- animals other that results) better more obtain to reflection the by indicated as actions rational,those andtheir outcomes change and (e.g., actions their on toreflect to do things who have namely, it, It them us. may for animals value allow adaptive the particular of course evolution, the it may and during havesciousness may have hada arisen ness as a unique cognitive capability, it seems plausible that special this kind of con- 2005). Metcalfe, none have haveprimates done(Terrace, language, sodefinitively 2005; & Terrace nonhuman some least at that demonstrate to attempting studies many been have day, there tothis although And, not did have language. conclusion animals that was in on Descartes’ evidence weighing The primary humans. in only existed of asoul, hence possibility and it, who the that believed by denied Descartes, explicitly was The possiblekind of consciousness extensionthis other animals. of to nonhumans perhaps and to of tohumans may consciousness beavailable that kind a particular determining in of metacognition status special toacknowledge the stance dualist However, end. tothat meditations his used and one a adualist need notwas take of course, therethatself-reflection implies bea must nonphysical Descartes, soul. of state shy consciousness, might away of suchcial namely, from, existence the that aspe- entailing as of1994), metacognition importance tothe who even ascribe those for subsequent thinkers. metacognitive and such for muser, Descartes who the that is aself implicated musings haddeepsignificance observation, This him. reflection: this of all doing somebody 1998), unabletodeny was (cf., 1945/1972) Russell, what Descartes was there that was Metcalfe, 1994; Kelley, & Jacoby, Bjork, 1994; (seeBjork, themselves metacognitions ties of cognitive and perceptual distortions, which possibili- these 2004).all Despite (Loftus, now of course, is, established memory we well now know extend even to the of vulnerability bewrong. The might experience personal own his of his (see, Hochberg, e.g., 2003) resonate over to. whether He deliberating was of biases and distortions and on focused tradition entire an and chologists psy- modern all —which about befaulty his might whether thinking andthat might. he acknowledgeditHe was bedifferent, physical bodymight his whether He considering was deeply metacognitive. was knowledge, of all basis the about awoodstove) with poêle (awhen cabin his isolated he in was thinking small doing, was —gave Descartes What proof indisputable existence. own of his thinking about his able he was tothink —that musings of conclusion these fact the the that what we in now reached consider musings, tobeelaborate metacognitive Descartes, Is Metacognition aSpecial Kind of Consciousness? Janet 30 To acknowledge who nevertheless self-reflective nondualist, might the conscious- reached aconclusion (e.g., mostneuroscientists modern that Damasio, Descartes Metcalfe Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 into two different and spatially discontinuous locations (Müller, Malinowski, Gruber,discontinuous locations (Müller, Malinowski, and spatially different two into bedivided can Comte’s idea beparadoxical) that the tent really with might paradox (as spotlight would beconsis- indivisible tobeasingle thought originally was which of ” “spotlight now it has modality, the (Treisman, beenshown that 1986), asingle But, even aware within of being both. , same at the radio tothe listen and of (so, course ness, drive would monitoring not One cross-modal can beparadoxical). in parallel. contributing number ofmodalities different way, components of these a and what from we all infer, afragmentary in with and (see Hochberg, 2003) from what we constructed is hear, seeand from what we expect, continuity perceptual of Our illusory. is wholeness, apparent its and ness, conscious- of unity the of notion the that simply It is consciousness. their in holes any hadno were notion enormous there spot omission —they blind that —an gross this seeit clearly, they again, of Despite video course. shown the and told about gorilla the do not When seeit. throwing, ball the people, and screen, watching of the middle the scene, stopping chest in the tobeat his through walks costume agorilla person in size full- a that fact the by belied is continuity and wholeness apparent this But field. this in players the of all with field, entire the of perception continuous and whole a have to players ofappear of among catch several and agame avideotape watching example, (Simons for be, blindness 1999)change aperson which &Chabris, can in studies, recent from comes this of example dramatic most the Perhaps whole. continuous of a illusion an is there even though fragmentary, and piecemeal itself, is, ception per- 2003), (see Hochberg, demonstrated have psychologists perceptual many as But, sense. strictest self-referential, the in statement on depends paradox truly the being The fragmentary. and piecemeal than rather indivisible and consciousness unitary is recently, very deeply on felt based the perceived is aparadox idea that as until was, metacognition that fact The paradoxical. seemed function itself observe and function Comte,. For mind defies theor consciousnesshow both could that situation or toa that toacontradiction statement true leads an apparently as defined paradox is Comte’s as century, last the A in paradox. resurfaced, internal own its observe insidetherelooker can whothatus someis of special-status The Comte’s Paradox materialism. proof is positive against existence its that of Descartes postulate the accepting consciousness evolve could necessarily without of kind such aspecial idea that the sequences success). for mating entertain One can 1988, for con- the anecdotes about behavior and deceptive of primates the nonhuman for person it who the (see has 1992; &Whiten, deWaal, 1992; &Byrne, Byrne Whiten advantages evolutionary despicable provide might certain although tively, that atrait todeceive more ability effec- person this who the has allow Itunderstood. also could 1987; Perner, People feeling 1991; like appealing. indisputably —is 2000) Povinelli, as known metacognition of another’s able kind totake Being —asophisticated point mates. of view potential to attractive presenceparticularly —its selection being of sexual terms in had it, Across modalities, it is straightforward to follow more than one line of conscious- theory of mind of theory Evolution ofMetacognition (Frith & Happe, 1999; Heyes, 1998; Leslie, &Happe, (Frith 1999; Heyes, 1998; Leslie, 31 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 observer, essentially a full-blown person. But monitoring, computationally at least, person. But at computationally least, monitoring, afull-blown observer, essentially elaborate an entails or monitoring, observation, that postulate on depends cism the criti- “turtles” dissolves into absurdity. The This soon and adinfinitum. seeing, is homunculus headtobeconscious of the the of ahomunculus inside what is itthere one But, then topropose needs apparatus. that elaborated perceptual-cognitive fully person, or homunculus, complete a internal soit with tobeafull-blown and needs tobeable level, needs toseewhatThatis the cognitive observer basic going on at must there person’s beaconscioustion ofthen the inside , observer head. if that tohaveone the has observa- idea is based on criticism The criticism. regress, way the down,” all or infinite “turtles the Narens’s withstands also framework, andin Nelson the metalevel at functioning thereis a that looker of sorts, The idea Does Metacognition Imply an Infinite Regress? much as just unitary, not is consciousness that says course, frameworkaccepted. widely hasbeen of This neurosciencemodern would affirm. solution, This metalevel. two must there exist functions cognitive own its observe and cognitively function both could mind the that allow son Narens (1990), and proposed supposed to conundrum, that response tothis in solution. toprovoke metacognition Nel- researchers in theoretical explicit imental an refutes. research modern that —assumptions about function assumptions consciousness about and certain Thus, Comte’sforunassailable as criteria. affirm one tobea paradox puzzle, must could noting, —might well beconsidered co-occur quaint by modern function- the observing and or functioning monitoring, not doing and beso—that conducted by Wagerby ameta-analysis (2003). Smith and To could this suppose that in acomplex interact illustrated manner, been as has aspects different and processes, controls cognitive and other directs regulation Attentional of responses. emotional ) modulation (especially emotional-generative the toallow systems cortical sub- control work with concert system in cingulate the and how cortex prefrontal the levels. For Gross (2006) and Oschner example, at elaboratedback all feeding monitoring and constantly is brain the though, a neuroscience perspective, same entity.the beand one Fromthe andreflectormust really reflected object the tial, one’s For Comte’s of assessment parallel. self-referen- it and in tobeaparadox paradox or and memory cognition the entertaining simultaneously at atime, one thing than capability. this illustrate memory of working studies Many forth. backand —alternating memory)next working the in in ghost its asnapshot snapshot one of it at in that moment(or looking and by taking function tal men- own our observe to able be We moment. might psychological same the in occur co- do in fact reflection not the and “function” that remains possibility the time, hold. not does consciousness unitary a of assumption the shown, have perception of studies elegantas many experimental Thus, 2003) time. same at the & Hillyard, 32 Janet Even so, the postulation of a “paradox” was taken seriously enough seriously by exper- ofearly Even a“paradox” taken postulation so, was the of noFinally, people is there contradiction logic that beconscious might of more psychological of moment each in unitary were consciousness if even Furthermore, levels (of consciousness), level a or and object, abase, Metcalfe Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 “judges” the lightness in its environment and moves, very slowly, moves, very and environment its in light. toward the lightness the “judges” apparently Aplant some of make these. can world. even nonanimals the Indeed, in about judgments events discriminating able are tomake Even simple animals very metacognition. izes character- alone, that, at another processing with onefeedback from level interacting simple not is it But, feedback. such use also animals other most that all at question no would there be and it meant by was would metacognition, that bepervasive, were all feedback and monitoring if So, processes. other tomodulate of processing one kind the outcomesallow to of serving regions multiple amongbrain different connections feedback and and connections feedforward both pathway having every virtually with feedback system, agiant of bethought as can brain entire the Indeed, system. brain mind- animal the and the levels human of andall controlare Thereat monitoring Metacognition of Definition what meant by is first todefine question, this we need investigateand empirically to to cific humans being demystified, it may still be special. But, to determine whether it is indeed Despite creatures. other spe- in may bemissing that capabilities adaptive, and cognitive, some on them bestows it orthat humans, to unique may be capability particular this that possibility the out rule not do we meaning, mystical of kind some bearing as or (p. brain?” own his 11). toobserve brain own ciple, his use Thenwhyanyonein eyes. prin- own should at his sayleast cannot, apersonobserve would say, of aid amirror, the to moreover, with eyes, own his use he cannot that feet. No own one his toobserve eyes own his one use aperson would say cannot that phony.think, is, I “The problemregress No infinite anof self-observation producing with Humphrey Weandagree (1987)thesaying, now in puzzlement find puzzling paradox. adeeply perplexing was selves aself-reflective idea of that capability the were researchers that able them- approach tofree asystems mind-brain and tothe capabilities, processing cognitive distributed parallel function, brain semimodular way down. the all of turtles criticism — if it entails of metacognition possibility the then, Certainly, system. nervous only the in existing as such straightforward oneonly computation, vector.and entails thatdocumented is is trace it onewell This computations asimple only computationpostulating of input acorrelation an vector between a and — is not phenomenon feeling-of-knowing on the data by known of the able all tomodel nearly threatened by was framework, Model or Composite CHARM the Holographic the Associative may involve simple only computation; work (1993), seethe of Metcalfe who within duce the kind of metacognitive to sufficient monitoring pro- Amodel of metacognitive apparatus. datative-perceptual people give in feeling-of-knowing cogni- full-blown a like the heat)anything (turn offwithout action an trigger can experiments and monitors room temperature simple. Asimple the thermostat beextremely can Furthermore, it is not simply the ability to make a discrimination or ajudgment. adiscrimination tomake it not is ability simply the Furthermore, aparadox as either capability we no metacognitive longer humans’ Although view like with familiarity modern our tonote not it was that until It interesting is metacognitive Evolution ofMetacognition monitoring and control. and monitoring 33 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 representational call here, we, that processing of level a involves that commentary or judgment of kind special is a it Instead, very judgment. discriminative response toadifficult multistep a complex it not is combination response, And, toget the areward. multistep of a and regardless of the number of discriminanda. metacognition. requires It is multiple-step perform complex and world, can responses. None they and of this not merelythe thein and about they seehear what discriminations nonbinary fine-grained make production to trained be ofcan animals kind of shaping, this through beproduced. Thus, — can on elephant one tostand an rate sequence foot ofon getting moves abucket —like elabo- an responses until small initial on those builds way) trials many through and or movedirection certain a certain a in turn to animal the as getting insignificant as asimple with response (perhaps starts typically training involve multiple This steps. may and repertoire, untrained normal their in animals not the are plex, seenin that com- both are behaviorswell-understood that —toexhibit techniques conditioning —through able are toget animals trainers Circus metacognition. as qualify them representations. internal and do not concern aboutjudgments merely afferent stimuli are responses tothe they since asmetacognition do notqualify discriminations difficult tovery responding mayvisceral havenoticeable)(and flict well consequences. Butevendramatic such of Pavlov’sthat suchanxiety con- The dogs suggests directions. two in taneously be“caught simul- categories choice at can betugged the and point” discriminable ety. Tolman (1932) two between given choices of showed stimuli also animals that to exposed were showed circles the and symptomsof ovals severe the between anxi- training, halfway stimuli this after that, dogs poor The fed. be not would it appeared, response.tive dog Whenever oval would the acircle get appeared, Whenan food. madeafood-nega- was oval made acircle aconditioned an and response tofeeding, including severe anxiety, when responses, discriminations show differential can animals And, duration discriminations. make can become very difficult. Pavlov animals Many maze. of aradial arm correct the take reliably and (1927) discriminations tive alterna- eight at least make can Arat discriminations. line-length make pigeon can world bemuch the in judgmentsmore can about complex. things A Among animals, Janet 34 by something that happened in the past. (Note that this critique applies to virtually applies to virtually critique (Note this past. that happened the that in by something influenced been has processing ongoing its if even representation mental a be to ered is not environment, properlyprobe consid- refers.the The stimuli probe, in present the andthe towhich afferent environmentnot memory present probe is the that in judgment on the based make person can the since metacognitive being as qualify do not environment, testing the in given probes are the which in tasks, recognition some in judgments however, that Note, judgment. metacognitive a is judgment that a judgment about represented aperson memory,is and makes that internally, then amemory If a representation. It world, not is the presentbut itinternal. is in rather world also is Amemory but about itself, itobject. is refers and object rather the tothe or arepresentationcognition aword is Aword the or in not object asymbol. is the level) we call ahigher-level that and monitoring Metacognition, then, is not merely a judgment among options, however refined, refined, however options, among judgment a merely not is then, Metacognition, bequite complex making can without make responses animals the Furthermore, or cognitive or (and that Nelson & Narens, 1990, 1994, called the object object the (and Nelson 1990, 1994, &Narens, that called Metcalfe metacognitive . A simple case of a . Asimple case Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 one does or does not know is metacognition. The lookingthis behavior gives evidence of the great that they apes know that they do not that argued know, Call before reaching, tubes, the into by looking seekinformation, they andIf that knowing that apes seek information when they know they do not know wherethe Do was, asked they nottion, The did hidden. where foodquestion know was the the food is hidden? condi- this in of The ape. apes, of sight the line the and one food in tubes, ofthe two hiding hand, his between the abarrier placed researcher Then, forate food. tube the the intoappropri- immediately The reached apes morsel one in tubes. hidden of two clever. was used achoice they showed They that food or chimps orangutans knew. themselves what The they apesknew great that evidence any was there whether asked have They nonhumans metacognition. any attempt whether toinvestigate have metacognition. one. ahuman But, perhaps animals subject than other any with bestudied cannot states of consciousness have certain simply humans then metacognition, other than no If animals limits. may there bedistinct reactions, , and pain, such as domains, some in promise huge hold responding human of models animal that pute nobody would dis- While thought. of human model togain animal an for anumber of ,not question of least the whichis the of use whetherwe can important is have any nonhumans whether metacognition The todetermine attempt Do Other Primates Have Metacognition? todoattempts just that. have recent there indeed, havebeenseveral And, metacognition. animals whether rather than, say, verbally based rating scales, then it should be possible to determine tests metacognitive werethat representations about betting responses such as nonverbalusing internal administer to able be to enough clever were researcher a if ments, assess- these in used typically is language Although metacognition. true is rating the representations, mental question indisputably are or level, at so acognitive later,the answer answer to the be ablethe and toretrieve for The question example. on or about some answer about arating the scale gives he whether orthen she will participant The memory. a like environment, immediate the in present not is that beposedabout representational, queried is aquestion cognition something can the to a question. To answer knowthe that he whether orasked she beunequivocal will evolution. and implications its explore and capability extraordinary truly that bea it could maintain might still we is supernatural, defined, so ment. metacognition, Rather, denying it about is representation. amental While afferent environ- animal’s the in related tosomething bound or directly not stimulus is it as insofar judgment mere from differs Metacognition representation. internal an judgment about representation. amental must Metacognition beajudgment about is it since not a is it aboutnot or fluency herof metacognitive his current processing, ajudgment heperson or that or about just she makes or even sees hears, something the arepresentby criterion.) not They metacognitive If a implicit tasks. memory all Call and Carpenter (2001) Carpenter and systematically to Call wereresearchers first among the is intuited).individual The (as Descartes language requires Usually, metacognition Evolution ofMetacognition 35 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 escape button really does mean to the animal that the animal humans? the or in nonhumans the does not know (even in either metacognition indicate results these whether regarding though, remains, The question materials. way on these respond asimilar in animals nonhuman and Undoubtedly, were participants. when humans the humans functions analogous have did form as much same the animals these in functions uncertainty the that dolphins. and monkeys, of apes, species: also density,held for soon. a They and number of pitch sound, discrimination, length loudness, as such dimensions, of a number along held responses “uncertainty” These theescape button. wouldhit oftenchoose to “don’t animal the situations, know” called they what or intermediate these in that found and reliably reward some get to response escape an give to animals theplays allowed density. of intermediate They givendis- then They were displays. Response Btoless-dense and to densedisplays Response A tomake were trained animals the which in task discrimination density dot a be would example An another. one into smoothly blended categories two the in which toasituation animal the they expose would Then, dimension. same the response to one tomake trained were animals the a in which particularanimals with tasks classification category and a different self-reflective more the component. standard than response to to doubt rather — the ability — a thinking secondpicked of Descartes’ aspect up on adifferent category to for beevidence to appears leagues It have metacognition. Smith that isinteresting on col- and by Smith taken tofollow, of orwas course action ofanswer the this then indications of uncertainty. So, if the animal gave evidence that it was not sure to of the “judging,” really are nonhumans tosay that or,judgments for not willing those uncertainty to metacognition likened They dolphins. and monkeys, apes, tion with of metacogni- possibility the investigating labs, own their from mostly experiments, Washburn and Shields, (2003) Smith, well. as of humans aseries reviewed than other nition? Probably not. branch was thick or that they were thin going to grasp, be indication an of metacog- the whether or step next the at hole a was there whether see to leaping, or stepping before first would looking trees, the through jungle the through pathway or swinging on arough were running animal an metacognition? If them would one thereby grant for predators ears out —before their open field, on venturing an with carefully ing or eyes listen- their with skies the or looked birds —scanning around chipmunks oneimply metacognition? that one using If is or found, for squirrels that example, apple an for reaching one’sbefore eyes moving Does scrutiny. intensive deserves that the question, on but perspective one interesting an is This metacognition. indicates Terrace 2005). &Metcalfe, in citedas not did first seekinformation But contrast, apes. dogs, in Call, the (see Youngexposed. way much of did of as years age in same performed two the children when it was than hidden was hiding the which in situation much the was in greater 36 Janet On several grounds, I suggest that the answer is no. First, it is not obvious that the the that obvious not is it First, no. is answer the that suggest I grounds, several On Washburn and (2005) Guttmannova, have Smith, Shields, shown Furthermore, (see &Washburn, Smith, colleagues and Shields, 1997)Smith conducted many animals in of metacognition researchers have possibility Other investigatedthe Is this metacognition? The basic tenet inthis research isthat information seeking Metcalfe Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 later. it got it If it apeanut. If touched it item present hadseenon that the the trial, afew moments alternatives, session the that as in hadbeenused that stimuli of the four all forced-choice afour-alternative given it was test, with the test, chose totake to wanted it If test. the it take touched test, one the to it monkey icon; touched icon. the take todecline, If another decline or test the take to wanted it whether of choice a given was animal the trials, of the thirds on which, two during delay intervened, was to-be-remembered saw monkey the the to improvethat item. Then,a chances the designed was touching multiple This touch computer on . the touch three screen task. Hampton’s memory adifficult was task reviewed), Smith (as studies but the task instead in have could ditioning case beenthe con- role. Thus, itnot was reinforcedthis discrimination merely in a had beenequally four alternatives of the all and on correct trial, each was remember stimulus which hadto The monkey on trial. each target one choosing the four of as randomly the day, each four stimuli Hampton rotated through of judgment. Furthermore, time present was at that the about astimulus representation than rather about internal an judgment the was that possibility judged not the at was least present, was sothere a long of being way Smith’s toward criticisms procedures. Thestimulus countering Hampton’s Thus, atest. adecision goes about totake had tomake whether paradigm no longer was monkeys environment when presentthe stimulus the the in which in task, delayed-match-to-sample a called task a (2001) used Hampton monkeys, rhesus two memory, form of with memory. involve did elementary experiment an an In nonhumans. in metacognition indicated studies of any whether these about of criterion being arepresentation, abouttal it seemsprudent tobeskeptical fundamen- way” this (p. do this confidencenot studies these meet their 8).Because have not sofar beenable to animals report that catchis “The notedBut, they that, judgment itself. about the about was that stimulus arepresentation the than rather the chance procedureincrease This would humans. done with usually judgment, is as response primary the togive them —allowing spectively bedone make retro- recommended judgments animals the by researchers that early beajudgment about metacognition that arepresentation not is met. qualification Theelementary judgments. not are metacognitive they representations, judgments are (but seeabove), not making are are about they they because internal are thenotresponses They if memories. even studies. Thus, these responses in their tomake hear, see, or touch smell, start can when they animal the environment that for not is evidence metacognition. discrimination just abinary than least at rather athree-part make make can animal anonhuman that can showing So, rats. with studies dolphins than in intelligent universally used maze radial eight-arm the less witness itemeight discriminations, animals even that question no is There label. category button just athird is this button. animal But, tothe or uncertainty escape the is thinks experimenter button the the that possiblebest by rewards hitting get the —for or it moderate which can density lines —intermediate-length category athird human). is there tothe that it Maybe it just means have does meaning if that At each session, Hampton presented the monkeys one of four images that it hadto At one session, that each Hampton monkeys presented of four images the Hampton (2001, 2005), long-term not involving however, while that, atask devised it that hadbeen (2003) etal. article Smith review that It noted their interesting is in present are the responding are in about animals the which stimuli Second, the Evolution ofMetacognition then make their confidence their make 37 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 not sure or knew they had made the wrong response, they should low-risk wrong choose response, the they hadmade the not they or sure knew they either high-risk werethetheyicon.If should choose their response, infidence con- hadhigh they is, response, correct that had madethe they if knew monkeys the or hadbeencorrect not. answer Kornell reasoned if Son and the that given whether icon, one only but given, token was reward “low-risk” it chose was the they If reward. afood in resulted when tokens enough hadbeenaccumulated, that, token rewards received several they icon response had beencorrect, touch on their the screen and not could hadthought 2005, bedone).et al., “high-risk” chose monkeys the the If and Shields hadsuggested whatresearchers fits early paradigm ments; note this that judg- response the and the between interval no(although time was extended there present choice was nor screen test on on their the the stimulus Note neither the that answer. on on their bet” “to wanted atouch toselect, they screen, whether trained longer choice the of was (or madetheir which and lines were shorter) they then line, the hadseen the monkeys After task. discrimination Ebbinghaus) todo aline-length and two (Lashley monkeys trained They of metacognition. have aglimmering at least to do so. first Itmay the have was somecapabilities. metacognitive perhaps not monkeys one suggest —although —that as strongly then, as would like data, These criticism. another avoid to experiment this allows made was judgment alternatives were the notthat the present when do such Thefact pigeons tasks.) can are eventhe present, test questions (When alternative. fluency each of the assessing judgmentpresent not sothe could judgment made, when bemadeby the was simply not were alternatives the Finally, criticism. this avoids experiment the so delay), brief a (albeit memory but with involved task ongoing changing and an learning ination improvementnot was agreat discrim- asimple is task the .this in Third, was itself stimulus the Still, ages. afterim- to akin more something than rather memories considered be really should representationsmemory these Thus, working it maythat becontroversialhumans. longest seconds) 240 only with somestudies in relative metacognitive used tothose match-to-sample were (at short the delays task rather in the Second, the direction. right the in second show the did monkey effects accident. not Still, are just an results conclusions 1/20 their wouldthat important prefer like and of acriterion something more and before prefer consistency sample sizes reaching though, larger humans, ing test- psychologists Experimental metacognition. shown has monkey one that dence evi- best, have might, at criteria, we all on effect showed monkeys two asignificant tobesignificant. in performance for data one only difference showed monkey this chose, the when they intervals time showed at all performance better numerically andmonkeys both more test intervals, the often at short chose totake monkeys both Although delay manipulated. was atime experiment, additional an In test. the hadbeenforced when they totake than test the hadchosen totake when they keys, choice. intervening an without test, the forced was monkey totake the trials, of the one peanuts).as third remaining Onthe but not much nothing it as (which got more pellet test, aprimate the itthan liked take to declined monkey the If items, it gottouched incorrect nothing. one three of the 38 Janet Son and Kornell (2005) also provided some data indicating that rhesus Kornell (2005) monkeys Son that and provided some also indicating data one show have only study monkeys since of that metacognition? the First, Did this The data on the first experiment showed that accuracy was better, for both mon- not present at the time the judgment was made, and and judgment made, the was present time at the Metcalfe Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 cognitive abilities. It remains to be seen if this is a more general cognitive capability. amore is cognitive general this tobeseenif It remains abilities. cognitive today of extreme). havenition course, are, alive monkeys meta- It three that appears capableis metacog- on (even of of the sort any metacognition limitations the though most rigorous that have given positive results suggesting that any nonhuman animal the are response correct or had given the not. experiments These they whether latter the or answer in not, and the knew they whether former the case knowledge,own in of about some assessments their kind have beenmaking may actually animals the that factors These provide some experiments. reassurance both in trial onchanged every stimulus rewarded The discriminations. conditioned not were they memories; about were they present Furthermore, made. judgment being when the was alternatives test were neither task the in addition, In judgment made. environment when the was the were not present stimuli in the which in were experiments nevertheless sive, they representation of the judged depth was not sothe impres- that was very small, both choice. correct his in confidence high his then expressing and confidence tothe icons, exposed being then task correctly, the memory first 1showdoing of panels Ebbinghaus Figure three The monkeys. both for zero than greater significantly was not had they which in trials on response low correct and hadgiven the risk they which in on trials risk high choosing low-risk icon chose immediately choice.appropriately. They The correlation between response were their noand longer view), were high-risk/ in monkeys the given the alternatives test clear, screen (and the the sothat task recognition having immediate correct picture from an array of one target and eight distracters. After doingthe series of six pictures and then had to do a recognition task in which they chose the saw The a monkeys toperform. beentrained hadindependently monkeys the that task a memory to trial first the on response high-risk/low-risk the of transfer showed Terrace Son, sequence.and shaping Kornell, of asingle (2007) part than ments rather judg- confidence like something were really they that suggesting task, memory fide ments bona were tobeappropriate on learned observed apreviously immediately Kornell’s experiment. judgment Son and toanovel the in did as situation, to transfer would not beexpected put its thefoot andon stand bucketon it. bucket, finally However, and such shaping touch foot, its then the toraise elephant bucket then toget close only tothe and the involvefirst might getting bucket by suchtraining shaped multiple The steps. an elephanton a tostand of result getting final the achieve might trainer a circus example, For training. animal in common are steps, multiple involving responses, about choice the have but might response. Such instead beenashaped single shaped fidence confidencemight notresponse toa have judgment analogous human been high-con- some The shaping procedure,through toaconditioned discrimination. response, atwo-part tomake hadsimply learned monkeys the that grounds on the However, results task. these bepossible it might tocriticize discrimination density confidence judgments appropriately these able were tomake about also a dot animals The wrong. than rather button hadbeenright when high-risk they to choose the likely more were monkeys both that showed data The did. they what just is This icon. While the time lags in Hampton’s in lags time the (2001)While etal.’s Kornell and were (2007) tasks confidence judg- retrospective these that Even fact the more was impressive, then, Evolution ofMetacognition 39 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 The task that the former used was somewhat similar to that used by Hampton (2001). Hampton by used that to similar somewhat was used former the that task The pigeonstested have and concluded do not they show for that evidence metacognition. However, (1999) Shettleworth and (2007) Inman have Sutton and Shettleworth and have we must donot that be not answer tested. know. the been course, Most animals capable of metacognition? Of primates, than other animals, any Are monkeys. three tothese abilities metacognitive We some good conscience, in limited grant can, Do Any Nonprimates Have Metacognition? icon. (high-confidence) high-risk the choosing shows him C Panel appear. icons confidence the when thinking Bshows him Panel task. recognition Figure 1 Janet 40 Panel A shows Ebbinghaus correctly choosing the to-be-remembered item in a item in to-be-remembered the choosing correctly Ashows Ebbinghaus Panel High Risk-correct High Risk-correct High Risk-correct Metcalfe Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 conditioned discrimination task. It is not clear that or memory memory or representation mental that clear not It is task. discrimination conditioned however.ences, not but was a amemory task rather task the that is Most important differ- critical some are There metacognition. of evidence some provide did which therats werethat metacognitive. indicating interpretedas were These results stimuli. intermediate choice own difficult on their the with better performed they were test the compared, chose on totake they which those and test the forced totake were animals on the which trials those When short. long or distinctively distinctively were when they either than were stimuli intermediate test nose poke stimuli when the of metacognition. indication would bean thought, they this, test, the forced totake If they were more accurate whenwere they decided of intermediate to take the test length, than don’t-take-the-test up took rats the trained when nose poke, selectively, then stimuli when the they they were would be indicatingthe thatif were that was logic Their between. in stimuli researchers included critical that they did not know. regardless. pellets, rat three got they — hole test” the take “don’t the — hole that into noses their poked they if and introduced, was poking nose for hole ond If, however, rat pellets. got Asec- got six button, wrong chose nothing. the they they buttonthey “short” tone chose when short, the the was they If rat pellets. got six they button tone “long” when long, chosethe was the they button-pressing if the and test, were given they then test, the chose totake they If test. the not did totake want they if hole another into and test” the take to “wanted they if hole one into noses their poke were rats to allowed the phase, next button. the other In by the short choosing ing say- or — button one choosing by — long “saying” for reward a get to button correct reinforced for being the choosing task, discrimination this in considerable training rats given The were atonewhich for heard or time. was along ashort either time assessment. on based risk rebuttal, adetailed have written (2007), for Cerutti example, and Staddon, Jozefowiez, accepted. universally from isfar conclusion,themedia, popular This inmetacognition. publicized well while on pigeons no results metacognition. have indicate the they beentested, although were present. Theconclusion,that stimuli test is date, the to werebirds unless at chance (2007), the by etal. Kornell pigeons. from studied Again, tothose similar judgments, pigeons researchers just what concluded. is the were unable this todo and it, way The for correct totest the metacognition. was about arepresentation, this then judgment the was that delay representationneeded toensure was the and internal an a judgment about a entails memory or If metacognition is telling. choice. This their were present made alternatives test when they the unless task the unable toperform were not present, pigeons stimuli test when the the were above-chance accuracy with who were task monkeys, able the todo this found with results tothe contrast striking pigeons (or the escape that chose However, optionchance the increased. uncertain) in the monkeys, the with much case hadbeenthe delay increased, as Whenthe was task. afour-alternative) (rather delayed-match-to-sample than It athree-alternative was It was a clever experiment and seems similar, on the surface, to that of Hampton, Data were presented for 3 rats that were more likely to choose the don’t-take-the- the of tests, series critical at the long durations, only short and having than Rather in task todo discrimination aduration 8rats (2007) trained Foote Crystal and have rats that (2007) tomuch haveRecently, fanfare, claimed, Foote Crystal and confidence retrospective toelicit (2007) tried Sutton Shettleworth and Furthermore, Evolution ofMetacognition 41 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 of stimulus duration, even in this range, and that the responses allowed them to use touse them responses allowed the that and range, this duration, even in of stimulus hadsome rats discrimination the that indicated only of stimuli range intermediate the in inperformance difference The three. than short), rather pellets it get could six longresponse was combinations. (or rat perceived agiven stimulus Whenthe that for different same the the were where odds exactly the middle, the in exactly fact, in not, were They duration. in shorter slightly or longer slightly either were They ments: question answer, hadacorrect in experimenter’s tothe according measure- stimuli answeris test?simple. The the The it totake meant that wanted think experimenters the that hole the into nose its poked has it when right be to likely more be rat tive tion need beinvolved. show.data toshowthe what behavior. random likely Thatis exactly No metacogni- more rat is —the regardless pellets three same the is gain expected the rat did, the it not what did —since matter middle the in was duration stimulus ton. the When but- correct the choose and hole correct the into nose their poke do: to trained been had they thing the did reliably rats long —the short very or —either very extreme pellets regardless. So, it is not surprising to see that when the three stimulus was gain it not what did Theexpected it matter duration range, did: of the middle the in was was stimulus to-be-discriminated the if havethat rat might learned metacognitive Anon- pellets. got three they asure case which in test, the decided notthey totake if true It also was pellets. of three gain expected an yielding no pellets, getting and or wrong pellets six getting and of right chance being hada50–50 they case which in the test, take therats decided to if true was This three. was distribution criminated to-be-dis- of the middle the in for reward tones expected exactly the Indeed, range. intermediate were the in stimuli when the right not discrimination did get the mal ani- But, not the did get pellets. animal not, If the did. it which always nearly right, got it animal long the as as long pellets of aclear or tone, six case short was the in trained. were on they which long stimuli short fromthe and exhibited stimulus atest ancy may have discrep- the degree well of beensensitive to animals the Thus, nation task. aconditioned responsive categoriesin discrimi- are tointermediate on) animals that (from known Finally, it well Pavlov is reinforced overmotion was trials. that many the complex of of pokenose pattern mayrewarded part be no than moreinitial The foot its to rewarded for bucket has put on foot the putting first other besideits it. shaping behavior. Theelephant by ordinary beexplained easily button press —can that simply accidental. it was is possibility first the So, it. did 8animals the that 3 might of noteonly is askeptic thing oneWell, problem, first certainly, the and test. the opt todecline also might animal the which in task to another button decline-the-test of relevance hadany the toshow meaning the had used, that al. as et such(2007) Kornell test, response.transfer Therea shaped multistep no was it more may who have chose than Instead, rats it. beennothing tothe ton that meant don’t-take-the-test the no that was indication Second, there but- discrimination. part three- may simply have a learned animals The at all. task proper involved was this in 42 Janet One more thing: Why, on these intermediate stimuli, would the nonmetacogni- would Why, the One more stimuli, thing: intermediate on these What about experiment? The conditions contingenciesreward, the the the under in nose responses the poke —the and were there linked that two fact Second, the obtained? results the togive task do this How animal would anonmetacognitive Metcalfe Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 Armstrong, D. (1968).Armstrong, References capabilities. metacognitive of someconsciousness evidence given preliminary self-reflective of traces find who have monkeys sofar three the than other will we — however animals —in elementary research, further with Perhaps, ing. seemastonish- (see,documented by Clayton Dally, all e.g., Emery, 2006) &Clayton, of birds memory-like episodic abilities and capabilities, deceptive the as well as ties, capabili- travel time and representational the of Perhaps dogs. ties most strikingly, rats There laugh. are about a the superiornumber capabili- theory of claims mind of Burgdorf (2003), and Panskepp nonprimates, rats. such as that for claimed example, of capabilities learning nonmetacognitive remarkable the by impressed be to has one primates have provided convincing than other To animals evidence any primates. in with no date, studies most particularly cies, for this particular capability, although spe- developed people, nonhuman shows in in antecedents highly capability, while has to be yes. elaboratedanswer self-reflective thecapability, ahighly describing he as was Insofar However, that doesinto self-control. not mean1991; Suddendorf 2001). &Whiten, controland from stimulus escape are that our They Darwin referred toas of usually what is basis form the capabilities particular (1859)allow control these representations, which of mental reflections, Being responding. was wrong. “mindless” called be provide whatmight correctly between abuffer nevertheless they This errors (Bjork, 1986), and tobiases susceptible 1994; Metcalfe, sometimes are they although And, elaborated humans. controlin and levels highly metacognitive —are 1999; &Perner,sello, Wimmer the 1983). at —both capabilities refined of these All 1976);Reed, people toother &Toma- respect behave (Call with how and will they (Reder, 1987; Reder& Ritter, 1992); how solve problems they (Simon, 1979; Simon & (Finn, in press; Metcalfe & Finn, 2008); study whatwill they how in controlling and use them to they put reflections these take will they choosealso to attempt to retrieve Not only do they have &Jönsson,1994; Koriat, the 2005). Sikström 1993; &Nelson, Schneider, 2000; Lockl, Visé, capability to reflect &Dixon, &Ansay, Hertzog Lories, 1992; Rawson, 2005; Dunlosky, &Middleton, on their mental representations, 1973; of intensive (Blake, Nelson, & research Butterfield, Peck, Costermans, 1988; subject but world behavior. beenthe has the drive in that How do this they stimuli to the automatic betheir responses what would and knowledge, otherwise their learning, Metacognition in humans provides them with the cognitive capability to assess their Conclusion have then, not Rats, (yet) result. beenshownvincing tohave metacognition. con- seemingly alone enough toaccount is for this (2007) variability et al. noted, this As theyStaddon whenwere gradients available. fine of the discrimination own their Was Descartes right in attributing this kind of consciousness tohumans? only kind this attributing in right Was Descartes A materialist theory of the mind ofthe theory Amaterialist Evolution ofMetacognition . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kegan and Routledge . London: mind (Donald, (Donald, 43 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 Heyes, C. M. (1998). Theory of mindin nonhuman primates. Hampton, R. R. (2001). Rhesus monkeys know when they remember Hertzog, C., & Dixon, R. A. (1994). Metacognitive development in adulthood and old age. oldage. and (1994). A. development adulthood R. in &Dixon, C., Metacognitive Hertzog, Harrison, S. (2006). forget- and remembering between discriminate monkeys (2005). rhesus R. Can R. Hampton, Frith, U., & Happe, F. (1999). Theory of mind and self-consciousness: What is it like to be be to like is it What U., F. &Happe, Frith, (1999).self-consciousness: and mind of Theory Blake, M. (1973). Prediction of recognition when recall fails: Exploring the feeling-of-know- the Exploring fails: recall when (1973). M. ofrecognition Blake, Prediction human of training the in considerations metamemory (1994). and A. R. Memory Bjork, Janet 44 Butterfield, E. C., Nelson, C., Nelson, E. T. O., & Peck, Butterfield, of V. the feeling of (1988).aspects Developmental Damasio, A. (1994) A. Damasio, Western keep Scrub-Jays (2006). N.S. Food-caching Emery, J.M., N.J.,&Clayton, Dally, in &Ansay, (1992). G., C. knowing J., Lories, of and feeling level Confidence Costermans, Darwin, C. (1859). C. Darwin, Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of accuracy the (2005). constrains L. What E. &Middleton, A., K. J.,Rawson, Dunlosky, (1991). M. Donald, de Waal, F. (1992). M. primates. B. in deception Intentional Descartes, (1999). R. onmethod. Discourse Foote, A. L., & Crystal, J. D. (2007). Metacognition in the rat. rat. the in J.D. (2007). Metacognition &Crystal, L., A. Foote, andcontrol, monitoring on metacognitive (in effects B. press).Finn, Framing Call, J., & Carpenter, M. (2001). Do apes and children know what they have (2001). M. seen? J.,&Carpenter, they what know children Call, and Doapes S. H. In cognition. social comparative in link missing A and other: J.(2005). self The Call, tactical W., from Evidence (1992). R. A. primates: &Whiten, evolutionin Byrne, Cognitive Call, J., & Tomasello, T. (1999). A nonverbal false task: The performance of children J.,&Tomasello, children of T.Call, performance The (1999). task: belief A nonverbal false , 101–114. 21, 227–252) In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), (Eds.), P. A. & Shimamura Metcalfe J. In cance of consciousness reflective (Eds.), Terrace S. H. &J.Metcalfe In ting? 5359–5362. 98, ofSciences, Academy National Autistic? Autistic? ing phenomenon.ing ofVerbal Verbal and Journal Learning Behavior, 12 ing (Eds.), P. &A. Shimamura J.Metcalfe In beings. knowing. track of who was watching when. when. watching of whowas track 18, Memory, Cognition, and Learning, chology: question answering: The weight inferentialof processes. accessibility hypotheses. and transfer-appropriate-monitoring Testing the judgments? metacomprehension 86–92. 1637.) lished Cognition consciousness ofself-reflective Origins cognition: in link missing The (Eds.), Metcalfe J. & Terrace deception. and great apes. apes. great and Cognition, 4 (pp. 185–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (pp. MIT 185–206). MA: Cambridge, De libero arbitrio. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University Oxford Oxford: arbitrio. Delibero Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MIT MA: . Cambridge, Mind & Language, 14, Mind &Language, . Developmental Psychology, 24, 24, Psychology, Developmental Man, 27 Man, , 207–220. On the origin of species by means of natural selection ofnatural means by ofspecies origin the On Descartes’ error: Emotion, , and the human the and reason, Emotion, error: Descartes’ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. University Harvard MA: Cambridge, mind. modern ofthe Origins (pp. 321–342). New York: Press. University Oxford Augustine’s way into the will: The theological and philosophical signifi- philosophical and theological The Augustine’s way will: into the Child Development, 70, Development, Child , 609–627. (pp. 272–295). New York: Press. University Oxford Journal of Memory and Language, 52 Language, and ofMemory Journal 1–22. Science, 312Science, London: Penguin Books. (Original work pub- work (Original Books. Penguin London: 381–395. Metcalfe 654–663. The missing link in cognition: Origins ofself- Origins cognition: in link missing The Metacognition: Knowing aboutknowing Knowing Metacognition: , 1662–1665., 142–150. Metacognition: Knowing aboutknow- Knowing Metacognition: Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Brain and Sciences, Behavioral Current Biology, 17Current Evolutionary Anthropology, 1,Evolutionary Journal of Experimental Psy- ofExperimental Journal , 551–565., . London: Murray. . NewYork: Putnam. . Proceedings of the ofthe . Proceedings , 311–319. , , 551–555., Memory & & Memory Animal Animal (pp. (pp.

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 Rosenthal, D. (2002). Consciousness and higher-order thought, thought, higher-order and D. Consciousness (2002). Rosenthal, 19 Psychology, Cognitive answering. question in selection (1987). M. Reder, L. Strategy D. New York: J.(2000). Press. forapes. University Folk physics Oxford Povinelli, Perner, J.(1991). Pavlov, P. I. (1927). of antecedents evolutionary the and rats J.(2003). J.,&Burgdorf, Panskepp, “Laughing” control emotion. of J.(2006).cognitive The N.,&.Gross, K. Oschner, P. &A. (1994). T.Nelson, J.Metcalfe In L. O., &Narens, metacognition? investigate Why Reder, L. M., & Ritter, F. E. (1992). What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity Familiarity of knowing? feeling F. &Ritter, Reder, (1992). M., E. L. initial determines What Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. findings. new and framework (1990). T.Nelson, Atheoretical L. O., &Narens, Metamemory: of the P., (2003). division A. S. Gruber, Malinowski, T.,Sustained Müller, M., M. &Hillyard, choice. tostudy related causally are (2008). B. of learning Judgments J.,&Finn, Metcalfe, Metcalfe, J. (1998). Cognitive optimism: Self deception or memory-based processing heuris- processing or memory-based deception Self J.(1998). optimism: Metcalfe, Cognitive holo- acomposite in acontrol and metacognition, J.(1993). monitoring, Metcalfe, Novelty error. J.(1986). impending predict Metcalfe, of insight Premonitions Loftus, E. F. (2004) Memories of things unseen. of mind.” of “theory (1987). M. A. Origins representation: and Leslie, Pretense seek- hint and &Terrace, skills (2007). K., S. H. Transfer L. N.,Son, of metacognitive Kornell, (1993). A. Koriat, of the feeling model of How we know?Theaccessibility dowe that know Jacoby, L. L., Bjork, R. A., & Kelley, C. M. (1994). M. & Kelley, C. A., Bjork, of R. Jacoby, comprehension, and L., competence, Illusions L. Inman, A., & Shettleworth, S. J. (1999). Detecting metamemory in nonverbal subjects. in J.(1999). S. metamemory &Shettleworth, Detecting A., Inman, Humphrey, (1987). N.K. Hochberg, J. (2003). Acts of perceptual inquiry: Problems for any stimulus-based simplicity Cognitive joy? human 9,Sciences, MIT Press. aboutknowing (Eds.), Knowing Metacognition: Shimamura New York: Press. Academic ing, Memory, and Cognition, 18 Memory, Cognition, and ing, with question terms, not with the answer. 90–138. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), spotlight. attentional 15, &Review, Psychonomic Bulletin tics? Review, 100, . Korsakoff for Implications model: recall associative graphic 12, Memory, Cognition, and Learning, Psychology: 13, Review, 94, ing in monkeys. 18 Science, Psychological knowing. Enhancing humanperformance Enhancing remembering. In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), nal of : Animal Behavior Processes, 25 Processes, Behavior Animal Psychology: ofExperimental nal History.ral theory. 145–147. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2 Review, Psychological Social and Personality Acta Psychologica, 114 Psychologica, Acta Psychological Review, 100, 242–250. 412–426. Understanding the representational mind representational the Understanding 3–22. Physiology and Behavior, and 79Physiology (G. V. Trans.). Press. Anrep, University London: Oxford Conditioned : an investigation of the physiological activity of the ofthe activity physiological ofthe aninvestigation reflexes: Conditioned (pp. 717–726). NewYork: Macmillan. The usesThe of consciousness 309–312. 42, Nature, The psychology of learning and motivation and learning of psychology The Evolution ofMetacognition , 215–228. (pp. 57–80). Academy Press. National DC: Washington, , 435–451. 174–179. 609–639. , 533–547. , 64–71. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn- Psychology: ofExperimental Journal . New York: American Museum of Natu- Museum . New York: American 623–634. , 100–110. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MIT MA: . Cambridge, Learning, remembering, believing: believing: remembering, Learning, (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MA: 1–25). Cambridge, (pp. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Encyclopedia Macmillan , 389–395. Journal of Experimental ofExperimental Journal (Vol. pp. 125–173). 26, Trends in Cognitive Trends inCognitive Psychological Psychological Psychological Jour- 45 , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:30 29 Sep 2021; For: 9780203805503, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch3 Shields, W. E., Smith, J. D., Guttmannova, K., &Washburn, D. (2005). K., A. judg- Confidence W. J.D., Guttmannova, Smith, Shields, E., W. J.D., and &Washburn, by D. Smith, humans (1997).Shields, A. responses E., Uncertain T. children’s &Nelson, in K., trends O.Schneider, (2000)Developmental W., Lockl, M., Visé, (1945/1972). B. Russell, Janet 46 Wimmer, &Perner, func- H., J.(1983). constraining and Representation about beliefs: Beliefs W. R. (1988). &Byrne, A., Whiten, primates. in deception Tactical Ameta- memory: of working Wager, studies (2003). T. E. Neuroimaging E. D., &Smith, (1932). C. Tolman, men and E. inanimals behavior Purposive Smith, J. D., Shields, W. E., & Washburn, D. A. (2003). The comparative psychology of uncer- of W.psychology D.(2003). &Washburn, J.D., A. Shields, E., comparative The Smith, blindness inattentional Sustained midst: F. our C. in (1999). D. J.,&Chabris, Simons, Gorillas task. in a problem-solving (1976). K. S. shifts &Reed, A., H. Simon, strategy Modeling cognition. of models processing (1979). A. H. Information Simon, toaccount strength in memory &Jönsson, F. S., (2005).drift for Amodel Sikström, stochastic Sutton, J. E., & Shettleworth, S. J.(2007). S. &Shettleworth, J.E., Sutton, T., (2001).Suddendorf, A. for sec- development: &Whiten, Evidence and evolution Mental Aproblem not aprocess: D. (2007) Metacognition: J.,&Cerutti, Jozefowiez, R., J.E. Staddon, Treisman, A. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Treisman, (1986). visual A. in objects and Features Explicit macaques: in rhesus N.(2005). judgments &Kornell, K., Meta-confidence L. Son, Terrace, H. S., & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Introduction. In H. S. Terrace & J. Metcalfe (Eds.), Terrace S. H. &J.Metcalfe In J.(2005). Introduction. &Metcalfe, Terrace, S., H. Terrace S. &J. H. In of evolution language. the and (2005).Terrace, S. H. Metacognition ments by humans and rhesus monkeys. monkeys. rhesus and ments by humans 126, General, Psychology: Experimental rhesus monkeys ( 15ment, Cognitive Develop- task. learning of judgment a from Evidence monitoring: memory 103–128. of deception. children’s young understanding in beliefs of wrong tion 11,ences, 233–273. analysis, Society. Cognition Comparative of the meeting annual at the sented tive Psychology, 8, 8, Psychology, tive tainty monitoring and metacognition. events. for dynamic 363–396.ogy, 30, 112 Review, Psychological of learning. for judgments letin, 127, 629–650. animals. other and apes, great children, in representation ondary 13, 2007,April http://psycrit.com/index.php/Metacognition_in_the_Rat. principles. learning by familiar explained be can animals in “Metacognition” 114–125. York: Press. University Oxford consciousness ofself-reflective Origins cognition: in link missing consciousness ofself-reflective Origins cognition: (Eds.), Terrace S. H. &J.Metcalfe In mechanisms. implicit versus (pp. 84–115). New York: Press. University Oxford (Eds.), Metcalfe University Press , 115–134. Cognitive, Affective, and , 3, Neuroscience, Behavioral and Affective, Cognitive, . The missing link in cognition: Origins of self-reflective consciousness ofself-reflective Origins cognition: in link missing The Macaca mulatta A history of Western . ofWestern A history 86–97. Perception, 28 Perception, ) in a psychophysical same-different task. task. same-different apsychophysical ) in , 1059–1074. Pigeons stilldon’tPigeons have metamemory Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26 Brain and Sciences, Behavioral Metcalfe 147–164. Journal of General Psychology, 132 Psychology, ofGeneral Journal New York: &Schuster. Simon

, 932–950. (pp. 296–320). NewYork: Oxford . NewYork: Century.

Scientific American, 255 Annual Review of Psychol- 255–274. Behavioral and BrainBehavioral Sci- The missing link in in link missing The Psychological Bul- Psychological (pp. i , 317–339. Cognition, 13 , 165–186. . Paper pre- . Paper – viii) Journal of Journal PsyCrit, PsyCrit, Cogni- . New New The (5) , ,