Do Children Rely on Their Executive Functions When Providing Monitoring Judgments?

• In Event: Exploring the Association Between Executive Functions and Metacognition in Children: Empirical Work From Three Countries

Abstract

In this paper we focus specifically on executive functions (EFs) and metacognitive monitoring. Previous studies have shown that these two constructs are positively associated in children and adults (e.g., Bryce et al., 2015; Perrotin et al., 2007). Typically, studies assess EFs and metacognition in separate tasks making it difficult to discern the underlying reason for the relationship; that is whether they depend on one another or are coincidentally related. One of the few studies that measured EFs and metacognitive monitoring in the same task showed that relative monitoring accuracy suffered if working memory demands increased in adults (Bryce et al., in revision). However, monitoring accuracy was mostly unaffected by enhanced inhibitory control demands. No study to our knowledge has assessed EFs and metacognitive monitoring in the same task with children and thus, the underlying reason for their association in children remains unclear.
The current study includes first and third graders from German elementary schools. Children in this study completed two novel EF tasks with incorporated monitoring judgments (one visuo-spatial working memory task and one inhibitory control task). Relative monitoring accuracy was calculated as the correlation between the monitoring judgment and objective performance. Importantly, in each task the EF demands were manipulated, and it was hypothesized that if monitoring processes rely upon EFs, children would provide less accurate monitoring judgments when EF demands were increased (and these cognitive resources were occupied).
Results of the working memory task indicated that first graders (aged 7-years; N = 30) and third graders (aged 9-years; N = 27) can monitor their working memory performance, as monitoring accuracy was significantly different from zero (r = .53, p < .001). That is, if children performed better on the working memory task, they also reported that they were more confident about their answers. A mixed-design ANOVA showed a main effect of working memory demand, F(1, 55) = 4.57, p = .037, ƞp2= .08. Counter to our hypothesis, children showed higher monitoring accuracy if working memory demands were high. Monitoring accuracy of the inhibitory control task was also significant, r = .37, p < .001. This means that children (33 first and 27 third graders) were able to indicate their relative reaction time. Unexpectedly, there was no effect of EF demands; children’s monitoring accuracy was similar in congruent and incongruent trials, F(1, 58) = 0.69, p = .410, ƞp2= .01.
In this study, we aimed to better understand the association between EFs and metacognitive monitoring. Increased working memory demands did not lead to an impairment of monitoring accuracy. In fact, children showed higher monitoring accuracy if working memory demands were enhanced, indicating that the cues children use to generate confidence judgments might be particularly valid when working memory demands are high. Varying inhibitory control demands did not affect children’s monitoring accuracy. Taken together, this suggests that in children monitoring processes do not rely upon EFs and the reason for their association requires further investigation.

Authors

• Janina Eberhart, University of Tübingen
  Presenting Author

• Donna Bryce, University of Tübingen