Comparing Offline and Online Administrations of Measures of Truth Effect, Metacognitive Awareness and Working Memory In Malaysia During The Movement Control Order (MCO)

Abstract

Abstract: This paper described how the truth effect and its relationship with metacognitive awareness and working memory was converted from a physical (offline) administration to an online study due to COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdown measures. The truth effect refers to the tendency for repeated statements to be judged as more true than new statements. Processing fluency is the ease of mentally processing information. The automatic and unreflective mental system associated with processing fluency can be enhanced by repetition. Metacognitive awareness and working memory were conceptualized as a deliberate and analytical cognitive system in the current study. Fifteen offline participants and fifteen online participants were compared on measures of the truth effect, metacognitive awareness, and working memory. There were no significant differences between the offline and online groups in measures of metacognitive awareness, working memory, fluency and the truth effect, suggesting that the online administration of study measures was comparable to traditional methods of administration in a physical laboratory. Even with the small sample size, our findings suggested that statements that were presented more than once were rated significantly more true compared to new information. In conclusion, the truth effect was detected both in online and offline settings in our sample of Malaysian young adults. Our study documented how cognitive tasks can be administered in an online setting using a common teleconference application (i.e., Zoom). Our findings provide support and reference for researchers to conduct research online especially during times of restricted movements and the current climate of working and studying from home.Keywords: cognitive bias; processing fluency; non-WEIRD population; online experiment; COVID-19ReferencesAlter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569Brashier, N. M., & Marsh, E. J. (2020). Judging Truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807Burnham, T. C., & Hare, B. (2007). Engineering human cooperation : Does involuntary neural activation increase public goods contributions? Human Nature, 18(2), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9012-2De keersmaecker, J., Dunning, D., Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G., Sanchez, C., Unkelbach, C., & Roets, A. (2019). Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, Need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672198538Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251Evans, J. S. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Psychology Press.Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223 –241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.23191Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It felt fluent, and i liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion, 13(2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030115Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2014). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition, 43(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2013). The ecological validity of fluency. The Experience of Thinking: How the Fluency of Mental Processes Influences Cognition and Behavior, 190–219. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078938Istvan, B. (1995). ZOOM. PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books. PenguinRandomhouse.com. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/324143/zoom-by-istvan-banyai/Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st Ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Mahadi, R., & Subramaniam, G. (2013). The role of meta-cognitive self regulated learning strategies in enhancing language performance: A theoretical and empirical review. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 3(6), 570–577.Mata, A., Ferreira, M. B., & Sherman, S. J. (2013). The metacognitive advantage of deliberative thinkers: A Dual-process perspective on overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033640Moreau, D., & Wiebels, K. (2021). Assessing Change in Intervention Research: The benefits of composite outcomes. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920931930Nettle, D., Nott, K., & Bateson, M. (2012). “Cycle thieves, we are watching you”: Impact of a simple signage intervention against bicycle theft. PLoS ONE, 7(12), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051738Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-yQuayle, J. D., & Ball, L. J. (2000). Working memory, metacognitive uncertainty, and belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 1202–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755945Rashid, M. A., Chew, J., & Kabilan, M. K. (2006). Metacognitive reading strategies of good Malaysian Chinese learners. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 2(March), 21–41.Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicología Educativa, 17, 163–177.Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 1. http://wiki.biologyscholars.org/@api/deki/files/87/=schraw1998-meta.pdfSchraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. In Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475). https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033Stanovich, K. E. (2011). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual diff erences in reasoning. The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, 343–365.Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning Independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning : Implications for the rationality debate ? Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–726.Stone, J. M., & Towse, J. N. (2015). A working memory test battery: Java-based collection of seven working memory tasks. Journal of Open Research Software, 3(1989). https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.brSwami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Journal of Cognition, 133, 572–585.Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.306Thompson, V. A. (2012). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., Silva, R. R., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2019). Truth by repetition: Explanations and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419827854Unkelbach, C., & Rom, S. C. (2017). A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect. Cognition, 160, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.016Veloo, A., Rani, M. A., & Hariharan, K. (2014). The role of gender in the use of metacognitive awareness reading strategies among biology students. Asian Social Science, 11(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n1p67Vinney, L. A., Friberg, J. C., & Smyers, M. (2018). Case-based perspective-taking as a mechanism to improve metacognition and higher-level thinking in undergraduate speech-language pathology students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(3), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i2.24006Ward, R. T., & Butler, D. L. (2019). An investigation of metacognitive awareness and academic performance in college freshmen. Education, 3, 120–126.West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking. Associations with Cognitive Ability and Thinking Dispositions, 100(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842Wijekumar, K., & Meidinger, P. (2006). Interrupted cognition in an undergraduate programming course. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(1), n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504201168Wikipedia. (2021). Malaysian movement control order. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_movement_control_order