Hypercorrection (psychology)

Last updated

Hypercorrection is the higher likelihood of correcting a general knowledge error when originally certain that the information they understand is accurate as opposed to unsure of the information. [1] The phenomenon suggests that once a general knowledge information is confidently misremembered by someone and the person learns the right version after their initial response is corrected, their likelihood of remembering this piece of information will be higher than someone who was unsure of their initial answer. It refers to the finding that when given corrective feedback, errors that are committed with high confidence are easier to correct than low confidence errors. [2]

Contents

For example, a student taking a test on state capitals is certain that Pittsburgh is the capital of Pennsylvania. When the test is returned, the answer has been corrected to Harrisburg. Shocked that the answer was incorrect, the student is more likely to make sure to remember the correct answer than the student who was originally unsure about the answer.

The hypercorrection effect explores whether making mistakes early on in the learning process can be beneficial to the learner and their encoding of the material. [3]

History

The pattern was named "hypercorrection" by psychologists Janet Metcalfe and Brady Butterfield of Columbia University in 2001. [4] However, it was originally noticed by Raymond W. Kulhavy (1977), who wrote an educational review focusing on students and the correction process. Kulhavy discovered that those students who had confidently answered incorrectly on tests or other modes of examination such as homework, when corrected, were much more likely to remember the material on later tests. [5]

In a study by the same researchers in 2006, Metcalfe and Butterfield, hypercorrection effect and its implications are further examined. Beginning with the presupposition that an error committed with high confidence would require a great deal of effort to overwrite, the researchers concluded that errors committed with a great deal of confidence were among the easiest errors to correct. [6]

Research

Even though conceptions about hypercorrection emerged in educational research, it is not limited only to the learning environment. General knowledge errors can be learned from books, movies, or television, especially with the natural tendencies to believe things are true. [7] A common example is the misconception that raindrops are tear-shaped. Understandably, many believe this because of depictions of such raindrops on weather channels.

In the past few years, hypercorrection research has focused on the factors behind it and whether people of all ages exhibit this phenomenon. There has been evidence that surprise or embarrassment of getting the answer wrong has an important role in hypercorrection. As people fear being ridiculed for answering a general knowledge question incorrectly, they will be more likely to remember a confident mistake they had made once. For example, a person suggests that scallops come from trees. This person's friends laugh, pointing out that scallops come from the ocean. Embarrassed that the response was incorrect, the person makes sure to remember this fact to avoid embarrassment.

Another factor implicated in hypercorrection is that there will be more vocabulary or knowledge used about answers that the individual is certain of instead of unsure about, possibly implying that people are more familiar with the answers they are confident with. As research on hypercorrection shows, subjects are likely to guess or pick the correct answer on retests when they were sure about their response on the original test. [8] This suggests that familiarity with the information may be part of producing the hypercorrection effect.

The claims about the hypercorrection effect stating that it has a significant part in the correction of mistakes have also been supported by a study done using brain imaging. Janet Metcalfe, Brady Butterfield, Christian Habeck, and Yaakov Stern (2012) conducted an experiment using fMRI to observe neural correlations related to the hypercorrection effects in people. 15 people participated in the experiment; 10 women and 5 men. The experimenters delivered a questionnaire to the participants and recorded brain activities using fMRI, while correcting incorrect answers. It was discovered that while participants received their correction after committing a mistake, the brain was showing activation of the Temporoparietal Junction (TPJ) which indicates that they were entertaining the original false belief as well as the true belief. [9]

Because the hypercorrection effect is all about our knowledge, knowledge errors, and their effects on our correction of knowledge errors, it seems likely that this effect will have been studied in genuine classroom settings. Yet, hypercorrection effects have mostly been studied by observation only of past scenarios. This effect has mostly been studied only in typical laboratory settings. A study done by Carpenter, Haynes, Corral, and Yeung (2018) is one of the first times this effect has been studied in an authentic educational context. This study was conducted in a university’s introductory horticulture class. The students in this class were first presented with questionnaires related to the educational content of that course. They were then presented with the correct answers and were later given a post-test to test the same information in the same way once again. When analyzing the test results, the researchers determined that a powerful hypercorrection effect was present. In analyzing these results, the researchers found that students who had a higher previous knowledge and understanding of the material not only showed a higher confidence in their original answers but also exhibited a much more prevalent and more impressive hypercorrection effect of their inaccurate answers. We see from this and the other studies mentioned that a higher general knowledge of the topic seems to also bring along with it a more potent hypercorrection effect. [10]

Janet Metcalfe (2017) explores the effect and possible repercussions of not using this hypercorrection effect to our advantage in the classroom. In an annual psychology review she wrote on this topic; she explains how focusing solely on avoiding errors completely before testing in the classroom may actually be a disadvantageous method of teaching and learning. This claim is made only for neurologically typical students. Metcalfe even goes as far to say that it may actually be a beneficial practice for students in education to commit and correct errors while in low-stakes situations as a method of coming to learn and understand the given material more unshakably. [3] In addition to the benefits of making errors to the learners, Metcalfe also claims that the process of hearing the errors and correcting them can be helpful for the teachers: Aside from the direct benefit to learners, teachers gain valuable information from errors, and error tolerance encourages students’ active, exploratory, generative engagement. [11] This adds another beneficial aspect of hypercorrection in education, further proving the importance of the theory.

Hypercorrection and age

There have been implications that age plays a role within the hypercorrection effect, after research showed that not all people showed this effect. Most studies in the past have asked young adults to answer general knowledge questions. Recently, older adults have been tested and have not shown the hypercorrection effect, though this does not provide definitive evidence to state that older adults cannot exhibit this phenomenon. [12] However, whether older adults are better at correcting knowledge they are unsure about or they are worse at hypercorrection is still to be determined. [13] The result for children are not concrete, but some say that the prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain that is crucial to memory, is important for the hypercorrection effect. This would be a plausible explanation since elders may have impaired prefrontal cortices and children's may be underdeveloped.

In speaking about the difference in hypercorrection’s effects relative to age, we learn from Metcalfe, Stern, and Eich (2014) that while older adults were seen to do a better job with general test accuracy, they had a low occurrence of the hypercorrection effect while younger adults were shown to display this phenomenon more frequently. [12] However, the researchers found out later that this was not because of a problem with their memory and processing mechanisms of older people. They tend to hypercorrect less, because older adults tended to correct all of their errors rather than just focusing on high-confidence errors. [14] Although this finding raises another question regarding the learning abilities of older adults, if they are so better at focusing on all errors they make than young people, how is it harder to learn at an older age? The researchers suggest that their experiment, that was conducted in vitro with factual pieces of information, can have a different outcome than real life, since older adults could be particularly motivated to learn the truth, and capable of engaging their attention to this end. [14] However, this suggestion remains unexplored in the field and needs further research to be proven.

Problems

A research conducted by Andrew Butler, Lisa Fazio and Elizabeth Marsh found out that high-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected, but they are also more likely to be reproduced if the correct answer is forgotten. [7] For the research, subjects were presented with general knowledge questions and asked about their confidence levels for their answers, as the wrong answers were corrected afterwards. Half of the subjects were asked the same question right after the test, while the other half were asked a week later. The research showed that after an initial period of one week, subjects were less likely to remember the answers to the same general knowledge questions correctly. Even more importantly, high-confidence errors were more likely than low-confidence errors to be reproduced on the delayed test. [7] The findings suggest an important fact about hypercorrection: high-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected, but they are also more likely to be reproduced if the correct answer is forgotten, [7] especially after a period of time.

Recent developments

The hypercorrection effect has been demonstrated and replicated in several settings and with many different types of participants in recent years. Metcalfe, J., & Miele, D. B. (2014). Hypercorrection of high confidence errors: Prior testing both enhances delayed performance and blocks the return of the errors. [8] The hypercorrection effect was tested with participants from the general population but was also demonstrated with a group of children with autism spectrum disorder. [15] Though those tested with autism spectrum disorder had a significantly weaker general metacognitive ability than previous participants without any mental disorders, they did not show any evidence of a weakened hypercorrection effect. Thus, the hypercorrection effect is seen by many to be completely disconnected from general metacognitive ability and is a phenomenon common among us all. [15]

Related Research Articles

Biostatistics are the development and application of statistical methods to a wide range of topics in biology. It encompasses the design of biological experiments, the collection and analysis of data from those experiments and the interpretation of the results.

Spaced repetition An evidence-based learning technique performed with flashcards

Spaced repetition is an evidence-based learning technique that is usually performed with flashcards. Newly introduced and more difficult flashcards are shown more frequently, while older and less difficult flashcards are shown less frequently in order to exploit the psychological spacing effect. The use of spaced repetition has been proven to increase rate of learning.

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. Psychologists test these forms of recall as a way to study the memory processes of humans and animals. Two main theories of the process of recall are the two-stage theory and the theory of encoding specificity.

Dyscalculia Difficulty in learning or comprehending arithmetic

Dyscalculia, sometimes called dysarithmia, is a disability resulting in difficulty learning or comprehending arithmetic, such as difficulty in understanding numbers, learning how to manipulate numbers, performing mathematical calculations and learning facts in mathematics. It is sometimes informally known as "math dyslexia", though this can be misleading as dyslexia is a different condition from dyscalculia.

Imitation Behaviour in which an individual observes and replicates anothers behaviour

Imitation is a behavior whereby an individual observes and replicates another's behavior. Imitation is also a form of social learning that leads to the "development of traditions, and ultimately our culture. It allows for the transfer of information between individuals and down generations without the need for genetic inheritance." The word imitation can be applied in many contexts, ranging from animal training to politics. The term generally refers to conscious behavior; subconscious imitation is termed mirroring.

Testing effect

The testing effect suggests long-term memory is increased when some of the learning period is devoted to retrieving information from memory. It is different from more general practice effect, defined in the APA Dictionary of Psychology as "any change or improvement that results from practice or repetition of task items or activities."

Metacognition is an awareness of one's own thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them. The term comes from the root word meta, meaning "beyond", or "on top of". Metacognition can take many forms, such as reflecting on one's own ways of thinking and knowing when and how to use particular strategies for problem-solving. There are generally two components of metacognition: (1) knowledge about cognition and (2) regulation of cognition.

Dunning–Kruger effect Cognitive bias about ones own skill

The Dunning–Kruger effect is the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. For example, the participants in a study may be asked to complete a quiz and then estimate how well they did. This subjective assessment is then compared to how well they actually did. This can happen either in relative or in absolute terms, i.e., in comparison to one's peer group as the percentage of peers outperformed or in comparison to objective standards as the number of questions answered correctly. The Dunning–Kruger effect appears in both cases but is more pronounced in relative terms: the bottom quartile of performers tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles. The initial study was done by David Dunning and Justin Kruger. It focuses on logical reasoning, grammar, and social skills. Since then, various other studies have been conducted across a wide range of tasks. These include skills from fields such as business, politics, medicine, driving, aviation, spatial memory, exams in school, and literacy.

Choice-supportive bias or post-purchase rationalization is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected and/or to demote the forgone options. It is part of cognitive science, and is a distinct cognitive bias that occurs once a decision is made. For example, if a person chooses option A instead of option B, they are likely to ignore or downplay the faults of option A while amplifying or ascribing new negative faults to option B. Conversely, they are also likely to notice and amplify the advantages of option A and not notice or de-emphasize those of option B.

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in his or her judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence is relatively high. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities. Throughout the research literature, overconfidence has been defined in three distinct ways: (1) overestimation of one's actual performance; (2) overplacement of one's performance relative to others; and (3) overprecision in expressing unwarranted certainty in the accuracy of one's beliefs.

Tip of the tongue is the phenomenon of failing to retrieve a word or term from memory, combined with partial recall and the feeling that retrieval is imminent. The phenomenon's name comes from the saying, "It's on the tip of my tongue." The tip of the tongue phenomenon reveals that lexical access occurs in stages.

The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ) is a questionnaire published in 2001 by Simon Baron-Cohen and his colleagues at the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge, UK. Consisting of fifty questions, it aims to investigate whether adults of average intelligence have symptoms of autism spectrum conditions. More recently, versions of the AQ for children and adolescents have also been published.

In cognitive psychology, the telescoping effect refers to the temporal displacement of an event whereby people perceive recent events as being more remote than they are and distant events as being more recent than they are. The former is known as backward telescoping or time expansion, and the latter as is known as forward telescoping. Three years is approximately the time frame in which events switch from being displaced backward in time to forward in time, with events occurring three years in the past being equally likely to be reported with forward telescoping bias as with backward telescoping bias. Although telescoping occurs in both the forward and backward directions, in general the effect is to increase the number of events reported too recently. This net effect in the forward direction is because of forces that impair memory, such as lack of salience, also impair time perception. Telescoping leads to an over reporting of the frequency of events. This over reporting is because participants include events beyond the period, either events that are too recent for the target time period or events that are too old for the target time period.

Metamemory or Socratic awareness, a type of metacognition, is both the introspective knowledge of one's own memory capabilities and the processes involved in memory self-monitoring. This self-awareness of memory has important implications for how people learn and use memories. When studying, for example, students make judgments of whether they have successfully learned the assigned material and use these decisions, known as "judgments of learning", to allocate study time.

In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval. Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.

Eyewitness memory is a person's episodic memory for a crime or other dramatic event that he or she has witnessed. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. It can also refer to an individual's memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of their perpetrator, for example. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible. It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this speculation, indicating that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined. This may be due to the fact that details of unpleasant emotional events are recalled poorly compared to neutral events. States of high emotional arousal, which occur during a stressful or traumatic event, lead to less efficient memory processing. The Innocence Project determined that 75% of the 239 DNA exoneration cases had occurred due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony. It is important to inform the public about the flawed nature of eyewitness memory and the difficulties relating to its use in the criminal justice system so that eyewitness accounts are not viewed as the absolute truth.

Eyewitness memory (child testimony)

An eyewitness testimony is a statement given under oath by a person present at an event who can describe what happened. During circumstances in which a child is a witness to the event, the child can be used to deliver a testimony on the stand. The credibility of a child, however, is often questioned due to their underdeveloped memory capacity and overall brain physiology. Researchers found that eyewitness memory requires high-order memory capacity even for well-developed adult brain. Because a child's brain is not yet fully developed, each child witness must be assessed by the proper authorities to determine their reliability as a witness and whether or not they are mature enough to accurately recall the event, provide important details and withstand leading questions.

The hard–easy effect is a cognitive bias that manifests itself as a tendency to overestimate the probability of one's success at a task perceived as hard, and to underestimate the likelihood of one's success at a task perceived as easy. The hard-easy effect takes place, for example, when individuals exhibit a degree of underconfidence in answering relatively easy questions and a degree of overconfidence in answering relatively difficult questions. "Hard tasks tend to produce overconfidence but worse-than-average perceptions," reported Katherine A. Burson, Richard P. Larrick, and Jack B. Soll in a 2005 study, "whereas easy tasks tend to produce underconfidence and better-than-average effects."

A desirable difficulty is a learning task that requires a considerable but desirable amount of effort, thereby improving long-term performance. It is also described as a learning level achieved through a sequence of learning tasks and feedback that lead to enhanced learning and transfer.

Active student response (ASR) techniques are strategies to elicit observable responses from students in a classroom. They are grounded in the field of behavioralism and operate by increasing opportunities reinforcement during class time, typically in the form of instructor praise. Active student response techniques are designed so that student behavior, such as responding aloud to a question, is quickly followed by reinforcement if correct. Common form of active student response techniques are choral responding, response cards, guided notes, and clickers. While they are commonly used for disabled populations, these strategies can be applied at many different levels of education. Implementing active student response techniques has been shown to increase learning, but may require extra supplies or preparation by the instructor.

References

  1. ↑ Metcalfe, J. "Older Beats Younger When It Comes to Correcting Mistakes". Psychological Science. Association for Psychological Science. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
  2. ↑ Metcalfe, Janet; Finn, Bridgid (March 2011). "People's Hypercorrection of High Confidence Errors: Did They Know it All Along?". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 37 (2): 437–448. doi:10.1037/a0021962. ISSN   0278-7393. PMC   3079415 . PMID   21355668.
  3. 1 2 Metcalfe, Janet (2017). "Learning from Errors". Annual Review of Psychology. 68: 465–489. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022 . PMID   27648988.
  4. ↑ Butterfield, B.; Metcalfe, J. (2001). "Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 27 (6): 1491–1494. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1491. PMID   11713883.
  5. ↑ Kulhavy, Raymond W. (1977). "Feedback in Written Instruction". Review of Educational Research. 47 (2): 211–232. doi:10.2307/1170128. JSTOR   1170128.
  6. ↑ Butterfield, Brady; Metcalfe, Janet (2006). "The correction of errors committed with high confidence". Metacognition and Learning. 1: 69–84. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6894-z. S2CID   11430724.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Butler, Andrew C.; Fazio, Lisa K.; Marsh, Elizabeth J. (2011-12-01). "The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high-confidence errors return". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 18 (6): 1238–1244. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0173-y . ISSN   1531-5320. PMID   21989771.
  8. 1 2 Metcalfe, Janet; Miele, David B. (2014). "Hypercorrection of high confidence errors: Prior testing both enhances delayed performance and blocks the return of the errors". Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 3 (3): 189–197. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.04.001.
  9. ↑ Metcalfe, Janet; Butterfield, Brady; Habeck, Christian; Stern, Yaakov (2012). "Neural Correlates of People's Hypercorrection of Their False Beliefs". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 24 (7): 1571–1583. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00228. PMC   3970786 . PMID   22452558.
  10. ↑ Carpenter, Shana K.; Haynes, Cynthia L.; Corral, Daniel; Yeung, Kam Leung (2018). "Hypercorrection of high-confidence errors in the classroom". Memory. 26 (10): 1379–1384. doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1477164. PMID   29781391. S2CID   29160922.
  11. ↑ Metcalfe, Janet (2017-01-03). "Learning from Errors". Annual Review of Psychology. 68 (1): 465–489. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022 . ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   27648988.
  12. 1 2 Eich, Teal S.; Stern, Yaakov; Metcalfe, Janet (2013). "The hypercorrection effect in younger and older adults". Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 20 (5): 511–521. doi:10.1080/13825585.2012.754399. PMC   3604148 . PMID   23241028.
  13. ↑ Metcalfe, J.; Casal-Roscum, L.; Radin, A.; Friedman, D. (2015). "On Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks". Psychological Science. 26 (12): 1833–1842. doi:10.1177/0956797615597912. PMC   4679660 . PMID   26494598.
  14. 1 2 Metcalfe, Janet; Casal-Roscum, Lindsey; Radin, Arielle; Friedman, David (December 2015). "On Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks". Psychological Science. 26 (12): 1833–1842. doi:10.1177/0956797615597912. ISSN   0956-7976. PMC   4679660 . PMID   26494598.
  15. 1 2 Williams, David M; Bergström, Zara; Grainger, Catherine (2016-12-15). "Metacognitive monitoring and the hypercorrection effect in autism and the general population: Relation to autism(-like) traits and mindreading" (PDF). Autism. 22 (3): 259–270. doi:10.1177/1362361316680178. hdl: 1893/24780 . ISSN   1362-3613. PMID   29671645. S2CID   4951642.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.