Solve the problem first: Constructive solution strategies can influence the accuracy of retrospective confidence judgments.

Abstract

Two experiments tested whether differences in problem-solving strategies influence the ability of people to monitor their problem-solving effectiveness as measured by confidence judgments. On multiple choice problems, people tend to use either a constructive matching strategy, whereby they attempt to solve a problem before looking at the response options, or a response elimination strategy, whereby they work backward from response options trying to find one that fits as a solution. Constructive matching gives rise to different cues that may enhance confidence monitoring. Experiment 1 showed that spontaneous constructive matching in nonverbal spatial reasoning problems was associated with better confidence calibration and resolution than response elimination. We manipulated strategy in Experiment 2 by requiring constructive matching and found improved monitoring. Implications for research on monitoring, overconfidence, and the association between skill and monitoring are discussed.

Preventing Response Elimination Strategies Improves the Convergent Validity of Figural Matrices

“…Overall, the items in the distractor-free version proved to be more difficult than the items in the versions employing distractors. This finding is very much in line with the position of many authors [2][3][4][5][6][7]9] who differentiate between constructive matching and response elimination and propose that response elimination constitutes a fallback strategy that is used when respondents are unable to solve the items via constructive matching. As it is impossible to employ response elimination in a distractor-free version, respondents are unable to solve the items by response elimination and fail when they are unable to solve the items via constructive matching.…”

“…The results of studies analyzing verbal reports and eye-tracking data have clearly indicated behavioral differences between respondents who use different strategies [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Respondents employing constructive matching have been found to spend proportionally more time inspecting the item stem before taking into account the response options and tend to toggle less between the item stem and the response options.…”

“…Mitchum and Kelley's [7] results indicate qualitative differences between respondents' solution strategies, i.e., some respondents solve the items by applying constructive matching and some by response elimination. Mixed types were found to be rather unusual.…”

“…Mixed types were found to be rather unusual. It has been demonstrated that the respondents' choice of solution strategies is influenced by individual differences in general mental ability and working memory capacity [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Respondents with low general mental ability and working memory capacity show a greater tendency to engage in response elimination, whereas respondents with high general mental ability and working memory capacity are more likely to engage in constructive matching.…”

“…However, these formats have rarely been applied to figural matrices. Putz-Osterloh [5] as well as Mitchum and Kelley [7] employed a strategy by which the testees had to draw the correct solution by hand. This in an interesting approach because response elimination can take place only if response options are presented.…”