ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Building worlds of your own: the functional role of metacognitive bias in metacognition.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metacognition, the capacity to monitor and evaluate one's own decisions, has become a central topic in psychological and neuroscientific research. While research has largely focused on metacognitive sensitivity, defined as the ability to discriminate between correct and incorrect decisions, considerably less attention has been devoted to metacognitive bias, defined as the systematic tendency to report higher or lower confidence irrespective of objective accuracy. Here, we argue that this imbalance has limited current theories of metacognition. Instead, greater focus on metacognitive bias can deepen our understanding of internal models of confidence, revealing how inter-individual differences give rise to distinct internal representations of the world, even when external information is processed in comparable ways. This perspective reframes metacognitive bias as a regulatory mechanism that balances flexibility and stability in self-evaluation, rather than a failure of calibration. Given its theoretical and empirical relevance, we emphasize the importance of estimating this construct within a Signal Detection Theory (SDT) framework. We propose the meta-criterion (meta-c), derived from the model introduced by Maniscalco and Lau, as a principled and quantitative index of metacognitive bias. Unlike purely descriptive measures, meta-c captures fine-grained individual differences along a continuous scale, opening to the possibility of defining more conservative versus more liberal confidence policies. We foresee metacognitive bias as one of the central axes along which the next generation of metacognitive research will develop.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.