The Specifics of the Relationship between the Processes of Meta-Thinking and Meta-Memory

The aim of the work is to experimentally study the relationship between two main metacognitive processes: meta-thinking and meta-memory. Its relevance is due to the central role of these processes in the entire metacognitive organization of personality. The hypothesis of the study is the assumption of the existence of regular relationships and interactions between them. The following methods were used: the R. Dixon—D. Haltcha method for the diagnosis of meta-memory, the author's method for the diagnosis of meta-thinking, a specially developed battery of cognitive tasks and their metacognitive control. The sample included a total of 182 people (96 men and 86 women; aged 18 to 56 years; M = 32.22, SD = 3.42); students of Yaroslavl universities and IT specialists. It is established that there are multiple interrelations and interactions between these processes. They are manifested, firstly, in the presence of a correlation between them; secondly, in the existence of mutual influences of both these processes on each other; thirdly, in the asymmetry of their determinative influences, consisting in the fact that the influence of meta-thinking on meta-memory is expressed in a more explicit form than the reverse influence; fourth, that there is a “divergent” type of interaction between them, explicated by the method of factor experiment and testifying to their mutually reinforcing that is facilitating interaction.

1. Blonskij P.P. Pamjat’ i myshlenije. Sankt-Peterburg: Piter, 2001. 288 p.
2. Karpov A.A. Struktura metakognitivnoj reguljatsii upravlencheskoj dejatel’nosti. Moskva: Izd-vo RAO, 2018. 784 p.
3. Karpov A.A. Novyje metkognitivnoj reguljatsii upravlensheskoj dejatel’nosti: Moskva: MPSU, 2019. 132 p.
4. Karpov A.V. Psikhologija soznanija: Metasistemnyj podkhod. Москва: Moskva: Izd-vo RAO, 2011. 1080 p.
5. Karpov A.V. Refleksivnaja determinatsija dejatel’nosti i lichnosti. Moskva: Izd. dom RAO, 2012. 494 p.
6. Karpov A.V., Skitjaeva I.M. Psikhologija metakognitivnykh protsessov lichnosti. Moskva: Izd-vo “Institut psikhologii RAN”, 2005. 327 p.
7. Pantykina M.I. Sbornik zadach i uprazhnenij po logike. Tolyatti, 2002. 72 p.
8. Sukhin I.N. 800 novykh logicheskikh i matematicheskikh golovolomok. Moskva: Astrel’, 2008. 270 p.
9. Teplov B.M. Psikhologija individual’nykh razlichij. Moskva: Izd-vo APN RSFSR, 1961. 452 p.
10. Tunik E.E. Diagnostika kreativnosti. Test E. Torrensa. Sankt-Peterburg: Imaton, 1998. 178 p.
11. Kholodnaja M.A. Psikhologija intellekta: paradoxy issledovanija. Moskva: “Bars”, 1997. 391 p.
12. Allon M., Gutkin G.B., Bruning R. The relationship between metacognition and intelligence in normal adolescents: Some tentative but surprising findings. Psychology in the Schools. 1994. Vol. 31, pp. 93—97. DOI:10.1002/1520-6807(199404)31:2<93::AID-PITS2310310202>3.0.CO;2-X
13. Borkowski J., Muthukrishna R. Components of Children’s Metamemory. Memory development. N.Y., 1992. P. 142—158.
14. Bröder A., Undorf M. Metamemory viewed through the judgment lens. Acta psychological. 2019. Vol. 197, pp. 153—165.
15. Çapan D., Ikier S. Metamemory and Memory Discrepancies in Directed Forgetting of Emotional Information. Europe’s Journal of Psychology. 2021. Vol. 17(1), pp. 44—52. DOI:10.5964/ejop.2567
16. Dixon R.A. Structure and development of metamemory in adulthood. Journ. of Gerontology. 1983. No. 38, pp. 682—688. DOI:10.1093/geronj/38.6.682
17. Dörner D. Self-reflection and problem-solving. Human and artificial intelligence. Berlin. 1979. P. 101—107.
18. Fan T., Zheng J., Hu X., Su N., Yin Y., Yang C, et al. The contribution of metamemory beliefs to the font size effect on judgments of learning: Is word frequency a moderating factor? PLoS ONE. 2021. Vol. 16(9). e0257547. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0257547
19. Ferrari M., McBride H. Mind, Brain and Education: The Birth of a New Science. Learning. 2021. P. 85—100.
20. Hertzog C., Dixon R., Hultsch D. Relationships between metamemory, memory predictions, and memory task performance in adults. Psychology and Aging. 1990. Vol. 5, pp. 215—227.
21. Hu X., Zheng J., Su N., Fan T., Yang C., Yin Y., Luo L. A Bayesian inference model for metamemory. Psychological Review. 2021. Vol. 128(5), pp. 824—855. DOI:10.1037/rev0000270
22. Karpov A.V., Karpov A.A., Karabushchenko N.B., Ivashchenko A.V. The interconnection of learning ability and the organization of metacognitive processes and traits of personality. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 2017. Vol. 10. Issue 1, pp. 67—79.
23. Laursen S.J., Fiacconi C.M. Examining the effect of list composition on monitoring and control processes in metamemory. Mem. Cogn. 2021. P. 498—517. DOI:10.3758/s13421-020-01107-4
24. Leonesio J.R., Nelson T.O. Do Different Metamemory Judgments Tap the Same Underlying Aspects of Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1990. Vol. 16, pp. 464—470.
25. Metcalfe J., Dunlosky J. Metamemory. New York, Elsevier Ltd., 2008. P. 351‒360.
26. Maustakas G. Theory and Method of Phenomenological Research. N.Y.: Press, 1998. 256 p.
27. McGuigan F.J. (Ed.). Experimental Psychology. А Methodological approach (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall, 1968. 441 р.
28. Mieth L., Schaper M. L., Kuhlmann B. G. et al. Memory and metamemory for social interactions: Evidence for a metamemory expectancy illusion. Mem. Cogn. 2021. Vol. 49, pp. 14—31. DOI:10.3758/s13421-020-01071-z
29. Nelson T.O. (Ed.). Metacognition: Core Readings. Boston: Allen and Bacon, 1992. 225 p.
30. Nour P., Esfandiari R., Zarei A.A. Development and validation of a metamemory maturity questionnaire in the context of English as a foreign language. Lang Test Asia. 2021. Vol. 11, article number: 24. DOI:10.1186/s40468-021-00141-6
31. Salder-Smit D. Individual Differences in Metamemory Accuracy. Contemporary Education Psychology. 1996. Vol. 8, pp. 44—51.
32. Schaper М., Bayen U. The metamemory expectancy illusion in source monitoring affects metamemory control and memory. Cognition. 2021. Vol. 206. P. 2—12. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104468
33. Scarampi C., Kliegel M. Metamemory for Prospective Memory Performance in Younger and Older Adults: Does the Reference Point Affect our Judgments? PsyArXiv. 2021. DOI:10.31234/osf.io/56kdv
34. Schwartz B.L., Metcalfe J. Metamemory: An Update of Critical Findings. In Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference / J. Wixted (Ed.). Elsevier: Killington, 2017. 180 р.
35. Sungkhasettee V.W., Friedman M.C., Castel A.D. Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2011. Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 973—978. DOI:10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9
36. Tulving E. Memory and Consciousness. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 1985. Vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1—12. DOI:10.1037/h0080017
37. Undorf M., Bröder A. Metamemory for pictures of naturalistic scenes: Assessment of accuracy and cue utilization. Mem. Cogn. 2021. Vol. 49, pp. 1405—1422. DOI:10.3758/s13421-021-01170-5
38. Vaccaro A.G., Fleming S.M. Thinking about thinking: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of metacognitive judgements. Brain and neuroscience advances, 2018. Vol. 2.
39. Wellman H.M. Metamemory revised. Contributions to human development. 1983. Vol. 9, pp. 31—51.