The Metacognitive Processing System Discussion and Design Review April 14, 2015
Introduction Metacognition is the process of high order thinking that enables active control over the cognitive procedures involved in learning. (Livingston, 1997) A few examples of functions of the metacognitive process include: planning how to approach a given task, assessing comprehension, and monitoring progress towards a given goal. There are two main features of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive experiences. (Flavell, 1987) Metacognitive experiences include two components; metacognitive strategies, which are sequential processes used to influence cognitive activities; and metacognitive regulation, which oversees learning and verifies the outcome of activities (Brown, 1987). Metacognitive knowledge refers to acquired knowledge about cognitive processes that can be used to control these practices. Metacognitive knowledge consists of three categories; person, task, and strategy. (Flavell, Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry , 1979)These categories will be expounded in depth later in this writing. The degree of control to which cognitive processes can be controlled through metacognition has been linked to intelligence, with an increased ability to control cognitive processes correlated with higher intelligence. (Borkowski, Carr, & Pressely, 1987) Metacognition includes several basic skills that are utilized throughout the course of a day. These skills include; self-regulation, self-appraisal and self- monitoring which can be described as “monitoring and reflecting on one's learning strategies and their effectiveness in adjusting accordingly. It also includes monitoring one's affective state while learning and managing it if necessary.” (Livingston, 1997) Learning style (literacy), search (reading), cognitive style (typical mode of thinking) and decision making comprise the remaining metacognitive skills. The following writing will focus on decision making in the context of the metacognitive process, and discuss several elements of this skill including: theories of the process, categories of decision makers (maximizers and satisficers), effects of framing, and design implications. Kayak.com will then be evaluated through the lens of design support for the metacognitive decision making process. What is Decision Making? Decision making is the ability to assess metacognitive abilities and knowledge in order to select an action that is deemed appropriate based on prior experiences, intuition and metacognitive skills. Decision is heavily guided by metacognitive monitoring, control, and knowledge (Strle, 2012) Metacognitive monitoring refers to assessing or evaluating the ongoing progress or current state of a particular cognitive activity (Dunolsky & Metcalfe, 2009), while metacognitive control is “regulating an ongoing activity such as stopping the activity, deciding to continue it or changing it in midstream” (Dunolsky & Metcalfe, 2009) Metacognitive monitoring is the awareness and evaluation of an ongoing cognitive activity (Susie is having trouble remembering the process to calculate confidence intervals) , while metacognitive control enables the action of whether to continue or discontinue an ongoing cognitive activity (Susie decides to change her learning strategy to remember the process more effectively). (Strle, 2012)The outcomes of decision making are influenced by several factors including; metacognitive feelings (intuition),
biases and impressions from unconscious processes, personality traits (determined by culture), and frames of the problem (positive and negative) . (Nelson & L., 1990) How does it work? There are several theories on how metacognitive processes are controlled to yield decisions. One theory proposed by Koriat maintains that there are two types of information that enable individuals to control cognitive processes; experience based metacognitive judgements, and theory based metacognitive judgements. (Koriat, 2007) Experience based decisions guide behavior by way of metacognitive feelings, which are the result of unconscious intuitive processes. This behavior is controlled and contextually sensitive. (Price & Norman, 2008) Theory based judgements rely on metacognitive knowledge which is comprised of three categories: person, which includes intelligence about how an individual perceives themselves as a cognitive processer; task, which contains information about cognitive tasks, how they should be achieved, and how successful an individual is at achieving; and strategy, which holds knowledge about the effectiveness of different tactics applied in reaching a desired outcome. (Dunolsky & Metcalfe, 2009) A variety of theories center around the idea that humans process information in two distinct ways. (Fletcher & Carruthers, 2011) These cognitive processes can be divided into two systems, System 1 and System 2. System 1 includes processes that are fast, parallel, unconscious, high capacity, intuitive, contextualized while System 2 is characterized by processes that are slow, sequential, conscious, deliberate and abstract. (Strle, 2012) According to Kahneman (Kahneman, 2003) there are four ways that a judgement can be determined after the intuitive intention is initiated, “ 1. Accepted by System 2 processes 2. Adjusted 3. Corrected (or overcorrected) when we recognize that the judgement or decision is biased by irrelevant information to the task such as affect, 4. Blocked due to the interference of emotions” (Kahneman, 2003)System 2 has the ability to supersede system 1, as noted by Fletcher and Carruthers, “One of the principal functions attributed to system 2 is to override system 1 switching to the sort of controlled, reflective reasoning characteristic of system 2.” (Fletcher & Carruthers, 2011) This is where metacognitive feelings play a pivotal role in decision making. Metacognitive feelings including rightness, difficulty, and fluency determine whether or not system 2 will be granted the authority to override the intuitive response of system 1 in order to initiate a more deliberate analysis of the subject matter. “Humans usually accept their intuitive responses (already framed, primed, biased, etc.) and do not change them by a more deliberate analysis of the problem, situation, option. This is because metacognitive experiences, conscious feelings accompany intuitive processes” (Strle, 2012) Because of these strong feelings of correctness that commonly arise from metacognitive feelings, most individuals accept the intuitive response, adjust these responses based on metacognitive knowledge, and justify reasoning for their choice after the fact. (Kahneman, 2003)Due to this justification of reasoning, human beings are not adept in properly assessing the effectiveness of their performance.
Frederick developed the cognitive reflection test also known as CRT, to measure this feeling of intuitive rightness or FOR (feeling of rightness). (Frederick, 2005)The test is comprised of three simple questions designed to elicit a fluent and persuasive response, the response of correctness that comes intuitively to the mind. The insights from this test assert that Metacognitive feelings are mediated by the fluency with which the information is brought to mind. (Frederick, 2005) Thompson, Prowse, Turner and Pennycook built on this belief, demonstrating that a low feeling of rightness correlated with longer rethinking times, and increased probability of answer change in both deliberate and analytical thinking. (Thompson, Prowse, Turner, & Pennycook, 2011) Results from the CRT also revealed that participants with higher scores maintain a willingness to take risks when the positive outcome has a higher expected value, and less of a willingness to take risks if the outcome has a lower expected value. (Frederick, 2005)Individuals with lower scores exhibited the opposite behavior, with an aversion to risk in the domain of gains when the gamble had a higher expected value, and a willingness to gamble in the domain of losses even though gambles had smaller expected values than non-risky options. “ In the domain of gambles, maximizing gains seems as a good decision strategy and the minority of participants that were more able to reflect on and change their impulsive, intuitive response for a more deliberate analysis were also more “successful” on the task.” (Strle, 2012) Maximizers and Satisficers In general, most people do not deliberate when making a decision, instead relying on intuitive responses to make decisions by default. This tendency however is not the case for all individuals, and the habit of facilitating further analysis through employing a more deliberate system of thinking leading to a decision, may be influenced by cultural percepts that change a person’s behavior. As asserted by Fletcher and Carruthers, “Many individuals seem not to reflect on their reasoning very much at all, while others appear to do so largely as a result of explicit cultural training (such as courses in mathematics, logic or scientific method) Metareasoning competence resides in a diverse range of self-management habits, acquired through individual and cultural learning.” (Fletcher & Carruthers, 2011) This self-management habit is eventually absorbed into the personality of individuals becoming “a trait of being more ‘reflective” that is being more disposed to pause and consider that adequacy of their initial reaction before settling on a final response.” (Fletcher & Carruthers, 2011) Common behaviors that influence decision vary enough that decision makers can be divided into two groups: maximizers and satisficers. (Schwartz, 2002)Maximizers are characterized by this reflective quality. They tend to analyze and compare the different options more thoroughly than satisficers. When given a large variety of options, maximizers experience increased regret, decreased satisfaction, and show a greater capacity for negative moods. (Schwartz, 2002)This is most likely due an overdrawing from the limited cognitive resource, an overuse of which results in frustration, anxiety, pain and suffering. Satisficers on the other hand tend to spend less time on the decision making process and rely more heavily on metacognitive feelings to make decisions. They are more heavily subject to biases and misconceptions generated by relying on
System 1 and their responses “often fall short of normative standards of rationality.� (Fletcher & Carruthers, 2011) Satisficers tend to be more satisfied with their decision, despite the fact that in reality they are sub-optimal. This is due to an inability to face the reality of a bad decision, and the negative emotional and psychological affects that result from acceptance of a bad decision. (Schwartz, 2002) Frames Both maximizers and satisfiers behavioral tendencies are developed through cultural experiences and metacognitive influences. Another element that heavily influences the metacognitive decision making process is frames. (Kahneman, 2003)The information that is available to our cognitive processes is already contaminated by primes, anchors, frames, emotions, salient properties of objects and multiple other variables. (Kahneman, 2003) Frames can be defined as impressions individuals form unconsciously about perceived objects and thoughts. They determined which features are more accessible which in turn biases our choices. (Strle, 2012) Choice options that are positively framed to encourage a perception of gains lead to loss averse choices, for example choosing the sure thing, while negatively framed choice options lead to a higher risk decision. (Kahneman, 2003) Research conducted by Wang revealed that positive and negative frames guide decisions differently depending on the context. (Wang, 1996) In the study, participants preferred risky choice options regardless of whether they were framed as losses (negative frame) or gains (positive frame) if that scenario included only a few individuals instead of 600 or if the individuals included were presented as family members. This was explained by a tendency for individuals to make decisions based on the notion of perceived fairness. (Wang, 1996) Design Implications Understanding the metacognitive decision making process, and metacognition as a whole is imperative to design because anything that designers create, people will have to learn, and make decisions in the context of. Designers need to be aware of metacognitive processes and design websites that leverage the strengths and augment the weaknesses of the metacognitive decision making process to enable users to make good decisions. From the writing above, several insights can be gathered that will aid in preparing a design that demonstrates consideration for the metacognitive decision making process. First, it is known that humans rarely rely on analytical, deliberate analysis of choices to determine a decision. Designers should cater to this behavior by providing targeted, simplified and focused information relevant to choices that are compatible with intuitive processing. Designers must also realize that different subsets of users will analyze information differently based on personality traits and cultural influences. For example, maximizers experience increased anxiety when faced with a large consideration set. In order to reduce this anxiety of maximizers, designers should consider limiting options or providing information that conducive to analysis, for example, highlight the unique traits that differentiate each object from the other. Kyak.com does this through providing filters throughout each categorical area of the site
that allow the user to limit the results based on the qualities that are most important to them, hence reducing the consideration set and lessening anxiety. It is also crucial that designers understand the primes and biases that target users may already have stored in their cognitive perception. Designers need to have a good sense of the user’s perception of the product, as well influences and preconceived notions that may exist in the target user’s minds eye. This will allow the designer to understand where the user is in relation to the product, and what their goals are in order to bridge this gap between intention and end goal through the design. An example of confronting this issue from Kyak.com is depicted below: 1. Designed to confront the prime or bias that websites can take advantage of users by claiming they offer the lowest prices. This function allows users to see for themselves and compare prices from other sites directly on kayak’s website.
Understanding the common areas where users go wrong in making decisions and building support into the design in both structure, content, and functionality is also crucial to guiding good decisions. Kayak.com does this in several ways depicted below:
1. Listing the average user rating and reviews to synthesize an overall quality rating to prevent users from selecting an accommodation that is below expectation.
2. Providing data depicting the avg. forecasted prices per day, to give users the ability to make a more cost effective buying decision on flights.
3. Offering advice based off of past data to determine when time to purchase a specific fare would be, once again supporting a cost effective buying decision.
4. Offering a price alert to be sent to the user’s preferred mode
Finally designers can support good decision making within a design by understanding the way users respond in reaction to the framing of a decision and being cognizant of foreseeable biases that arise from how the decision is framed, for example perceived fairness. Kyak exemplifies framing decisions in the examples below: 1. Frame the website structure in way that creates a perceived gain from comparing travel sites to receive the best deal 2. Frame the offering as a “Travel Hacker” guide to create the perception of an extreme “hacked” deal
Conclusion: Metacognitive experiences and knowledge highly influence the decision making processes. These elements must be understood and leveraged in the design of interfaces in order to reach optimal learnability and overall usability. Humans are generally not adept at making correct decisions, and designs must be optimized to externally support positive decisions by providing appropriate structure and content to guide user choices. Ensuring that the workload does not exceed the capacity is critical in creating designs that support decision making. This can be achieved by limiting the choices and variables and presented and offering support within the system.
Works Cited Borkowski, J., Carr, M., & Pressely, M. (1987). Spontaneous Strategy Use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory . Intelligences , 61-75. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation and oter more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. (eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dunolsky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Los Angeles : 2009. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry . American Psychologist , 906-911. Flavell, J. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. W. (ed.s), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillside : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fletcher, L., & Carruthers, P. (2011). Metacognition and Reasoning . Philosophical Transcations of The Royal Society , 1366-1378. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making . Journal of Economic Perspectives , 25-42. Kahneman, D. (2003). Perspective on Judgement and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality . American Psychologist , 697-720. Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness . Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness , 289-325. Livingston, J. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview . Educational Physcology , 1-4. Nelson, T., & L., N. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 125-173. Price, M., & Norman, E. (2008). Intuitive decision on the fringes of consciousness: Are they conscious and does it matter? Judgment and Decision Making , 28=41. Schwartz, B. (2002). Maximizing vs. Satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice . Journal of Personality and Social Psycology , 1178-1197. Strle, T. (2012). Metacognition and Decison Making Between First and Third Person Perspective. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems , 284-297. Thompson, Prowse, Turner, & Pennycook. (2011). Intuition , reason and metacognition . Cognitive Psychology , 107-140. Wang, X. (1996). Domain Specific Rationality in Human Choices: Violations of Utility Axioms and Social Contexts . Cognition , 31-63.