Can Intrinsic and Extrinsic Metacognitive Cues Shield Against Distraction in Problem Solving?

Linden J. Ball; Emma Threadgold; Anna Solowiej; John E. Marsh

doi:10.5334/joc.9

Abstract

We investigated the capacity for two different forms of metacognitive cue to shield against auditory distraction in problem solving with Compound Remote Associates Tasks (CRATs). Experiment 1 demonstrated that an intrinsic metacognitive cue in the form of processing disfluency (manipulated using an easy-to-read vs. difficult-to-read font) could increase focal task engagement so as to mitigate the detrimental impact of distraction on solution rates for CRATs. Experiment 2 showed that an extrinsic metacognitive cue that took the form of an incentive for good task performance (i.e. 80% or better CRAT solutions) could likewise eliminate the negative impact of distraction on CRAT solution rates. Overall, these findings support the view that both intrinsic and extrinsic metacognitive cues have remarkably similar effects. This suggests that metacognitive cues operate via a common underlying mechanism whereby a participant applies increased focal attention to the primary task so as to ensure more steadfast task engagement that is not so easily diverted by task-irrelevant stimuli.

References

Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017a). Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 607–617. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017b). Meta-Reasoning: Shedding metacognitive light on reasoning research. In: Ball, L. J., & Thompson, V. A. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning, 1–15. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alter, A. L. (2013). The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 437–442. DOI: 10.1177/0963721413498894
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Epley, N. (2013). Disfluency prompts analytic thinking—But not always greater accuracy: Response to Thompson et al. (2013). Cognition, 128, 252–255. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 569–576. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baguley, T. (2006, July 10). How to calculate simple main effects using generic ANOVA software. Message posted to: http://psychologicalstatistics.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/how-to-calculate-simple-main-effects.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ball, L. J., & Stevens, A. (2009). Evidence for a verbally-based analytic component to insight problem solving. In: Taatgen, N., & van Rijn, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1060–1065. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Banbury, S., & Berry, D. C. (1998). Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 499–517. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02699.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bless, H., & Schwartz, N. (1999). Sufficient and necessary conditions in dual-process models: The cased of mood and information processing. In: Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology, 423–440. London: Guildford Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, 35, 634–639. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195543
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Carpenter, S. K., Wilford, M. M., Kornell, N., & Mullaney, K. M. (2013). Appearances can be deceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1350–1356. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0442-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chein, J. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (2013). Working memory and insight in verbal problems: Analysis of compound remote associates. Memory & Cognition, 42, 67–83. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0343-4
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 111–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eggemeier, F. T., Crabtree, M. S., & LaPointe, P. A. (1983, October). The effect of delayed report on subjective ratings of mental workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 27(2), 139–143. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. DOI: 10.1177/154193128302700205
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eitel, A., Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: Does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 488–501. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Engelmann, J. B., Damaraju, E., Padmala, S., & Pessoa, L. (2009). Combined effects of attention and motivation on visual task performance: Transient and sustained motivational effects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 1–17. DOI: 10.3389/neuro.09.004.2009
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013a). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013b). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 263–271. DOI: 10.1177/1745691613483774
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eysenck, M. W. (1983). Incentives. In: Hockey, R. (Ed.), Stress and fatigue in human performance. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
French, M. M., Blood, A., Bright, N. D., Futak, D., Grohmann, M. J., Hasthorpe, A., Tabor, J., et al. (2013). Changing fonts in education: How the benefits vary with ability and dyslexia. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 301–304. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2012.736430
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halin, N. (2016). Distracted while reading? Changing to a hard-to-read font shields against the effects of environmental noise and speech on text memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1196. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01196
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Haga, A., Holmgren, M., & Sörqvist, P. (2014). Effects of speech on proofreading: Can task-engagement manipulations shield against distraction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 69–80. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Hellman, A., Hellström, I., & Sörqvist, P. (2014). A shield against distraction. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 3, 31–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.01.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., & Sörqvist, P. (2015). Central load reduces peripheral processing: Evidence from incidental memory of background speech. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 607–612. DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12246
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hernandez, I., & Preston, J. L. (2013). Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 178–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.08.010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxberry.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hughes, R. W., Hurlstone, M. J., Marsh, J. E., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2013). Cognitive control of auditory distraction: Impact of task difficulty, foreknowledge, and working memory capacity supports duplex-mechanism account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 39, 539–553. DOI: 10.1037/a0029064
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jones, D. M., Marsh, J. E., & Hughes, R. W. (2012). Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 38, 905–922. DOI: 10.1037/a0026781
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jones, D. M., Miles, C., & Page, J. (1990). Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 89–108. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2350040203
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition & Learning, 11, 1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lavie, N., & De Fockert, J. W. (2003). Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 65, 202–212. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194795
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lehmann, J., Goussios, C., & Seufert, T. (2016). Working memory capacity and disfluency effect: An aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Metacognition & Learning, 11, 89–105. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-015-9149-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leotti, L. A., & Wager, T. D. (2010). Motivational influences on response inhibition measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 36, 430–447. DOI: 10.1037/a0016802
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marsh, J. E., & Campbell, T. A. (2016). Processing complex sounds passing through the rostral brainstem: The new early filter model. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00136
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marsh, J. E., Ljung, R., Jahncke, H., MacCutcheon, D., Pausch, F., & Vachon, F. (2017). Why are background telephone conversations distracting? Unpublished report, Department of Building, Energy & Environmental Engineering, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marsh, J. E., Sörqvist, P., & Hughes, R. W. (2015). Dynamic cognitive control of irrelevant sound: Increased task engagement attenuates semantic auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 41, 1462–1474. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000060
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martin, R. C., Wogalter, M. S., & Forlano, J. G. (1988). Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 382–398. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90063-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 784–799. DOI: 10.1086/665048
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T. C., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., Schuldt, J. P., et al. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, e16. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000049
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In: Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory, 4, 1–18. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roberts, M., & Russo, R. (1999). A student’s guide to analysis of variance. London: Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Schwede, A. (2016). Fortune is fickle: Null-effects of disfluency on learning outcomes. Metacognition & Learning, 11, 57–70. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-015-9151-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, K. A., Huber, D. E., & Vul, E. (2013). Multiply-constrained semantic search in the Remote Associates Test. Cognition, 128, 64–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791–799. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sörqvist, P., & Marsh, J. E. (2015). How concentration shields against distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 267–272. DOI: 10.1177/0963721415577356
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sörqvist, P., Stenfelt, S., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Working memory capacity and visual–verbal cognitive load modulate auditory–sensory gating in the brainstem: Toward a unified view of attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 2147–2154. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00275
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Storm, B. C., & Angello, G. (2010). Overcoming fixation: Creative problem solving and retrieval induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 21, 1263–1265. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610379864
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973–978. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In: Evans, J., & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, 171–195. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson, V. A. (2010). Towards a metacognitive dual process theory of conditional reasoning. In: Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (Eds.), Cognition and conditionals: Probability and logic in human thinking, 335–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199233298.003.0018
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson, V. A., Ackerman, R., Sidi, Y., Ball, L. J., Pennycook, G., & Turner, J. A. P. (2013b). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency in the monitoring and control of reasoning: Reply to Alter, Oppenheimer, & Epley (2013). Cognition, 128, 256–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson, V. A., Therriault, N. H., & Newman, I. R. (2016). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of reasoning, decision making, and problem solving. In: Macchi, L., Bagassi, M., & Viale, R. (Eds.), Cognitive unconscious and human rationality, 275–299. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013a). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128, 237–251. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., & Ball, L. J. (2017). Background music stints creativity: Evidence from the Compound Remote Associates task. Unpublished Report, School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Topolinski, S. (2017). The sense of coherence: How intuition guides reasoning and thinking. In: Ball, L. J., & Thompson, V. A. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of thinking and reasoning, 559–574. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wänke, M., & Hansen, J. (2015). Relative processing fluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 195–199. DOI: 10.1177/0963721414561766
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41, 229–241. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Can Intrinsic and Extrinsic Metacognitive Cues Shield Against Distraction in Problem Solving?

Abstract

Paradigm

My account