EVALUATING META-COGNITIVE ACCURACY AND TASK CONFIDENCE UNDER CONDITIONS OF INFORMATION OVERLOAD

Abstract

In environments that heavily rely on cognitive demands, the ability to track and evaluate one's own performance or meta-cognitive accuracy is essential to making effective decisions. But in an era of overstimulation and perpetual connectivity, allowing information overload to impact this meta-cognitive capability is becoming more common. After each task, participants reported their confidence in their response. Meta-cognitive accuracy was measured as the relations of confidence judgments and the correctness of the tasks, using Type 2 signal detection theory, as well as calibration metrics. There was slightly increased task confidence under moderate information load conditions, while meta-cognitive accuracy decreased significantly as load conditions increased. Participants who performed under high-load conditions almost always exhibited over-confidence, regardless of performance. The dissociation of perceived and actual competence under overload conditions has significant implications for decision-making in the workplace, especially for decision-makers who must exercise judgment under time-pressed and uncertain circumstances. This study adds value to cognitive psychology and organizational behavior research by developing an empirical model of how overload degrades self-evaluation processes. The results advocate for cognitive ergonomics interventions in stressed environments such as load-aware user interfaces, confidence recalibration training, and real-time meta-cognitive feedback systems