Abstract
Introduction. Research into the key determinants of managerial effectiveness is currently highly relevant. Particularly important is the role of reflection regulation and anti-reflection means in managerial activity. Their exploration is objectively necessary for the convergence of research in two important psychological fields – managerial psychology and reflection psychology. The study identified and interpreted the fundamental patterns of the determinative impact of anti-reflection as the structure of its partial components—metacognitive processes and qualities—on managerial effectiveness. The most important of these is the optimum-type relationship between the individual measure of anti-reflection and the most important of these parameters—effectiveness.
Methods. The participants in the study (n = 310) were lower-, middle-, and top-level managers of government and commercial organizations and enterprises in Moscow, Yaroslavl, and Rybinsk. The study used assessment instruments developed by the authors, including the Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Anti-Reflection Means, the Questionnaire to Measure the Differentiated Expert Assessment of Basic Managerial Functions, the Comprehensive Questionnaire of Individual Metacognitive Potential (CQIMP), and a number of instruments developed in metacognitivism.
Results. An inverted U-shaped (optimum-type) relationship exists between the main parameter of managerial activity—effectiveness—and the individual measure of the development of anti-reflection means, as well as their structural organization. Unlike a similar pattern associated with reflection research, the established relationship exhibits a leftward shift, which is due to the specific characteristics of anti-reflection, as well as its phenomenological content and functional focus.
Discussion. The results are interpreted from the perspective of the fundamental tenets of modern managerial psychology, reflection psychology, and metacognitivism. The conclusion is that the established patterns are based on functions specific to anti-reflection, which essence is in regulating voluntary control over the implementation of activities in general and its minimization in particular.
References
Андерсон, Дж. (2002). Когнитивная психология. Питер.
Величковский, Б.М. (2006). Когнитивная наука. Основы психологии познания: в 2-х т. Т. 1. Академия.
Карпов, А.А. (2019). Новые методики исследования метакогнитивной регуляции управленческой деятельности. МПСУ.
Карпов, А.А. (2018). Структура метакогнитивной регуляции управленческой деятельности. ЯрГУ.
Карпов, А.А., Карпов, А.В. (2015). Введение в метакогнитивную психологию. Изд-во Московского психолого-социального университета.
Карпов, А.В., Пономарева, В.В. (2000). Психология рефлексивных механизмов управления. Институт психологии РАН.
Карпов, А.В., Скитяева, И.М. (2005). Психология метакогнитивных процессов личности. Институт психологии РАН.
Карпов, А.В., Карпов, А.А. (2022). Структура метакогнитивной регуляции информационной деятельности. Филигрань.
Леонтьев, Д.А., Лаптева, Е.М., Осин, Е.Н., Салихова, А.Ж. (2009). Разработка методики дифференциальной диагностики рефлексивности. В В.Е. Лепский (Ред.), Рефлексивные процессы и управление: Сборник материалов VII Международного симпозиума (С. 145–150).
Леонтьев, Д.А., Осин, Е.Н. (2014). Рефлексия «хорошая» и «дурная»: от объяснительной модели к дифференциальной диагностике. Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, 11(4), 110–135.
Небродовская-Мазур, Е. Ю. (2020). Особенности влияния рефлексивности на профессиональную идентичность молодого прокурорского работника. Ярославская психологическая школа: история, современность, перспективы, 175–179.
Холодная, М. А. (2022). Светлые и тёмные стороны рефлексии и арефлексии: эффект расщепления. Психологический журнал, 4, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920021475-8
Чемякина, А. В., Перевозкина, Ю. М., Карпов, А. В., Карпов, А. А. (2018). Структурные закономерности рефлексивной детерминации управленческой деятельности. Вестник Новосибирского государственного педагогического университета, 8(5), 209–228.
Anderson, M. L., Oates, T., Chong, W., & Perlis, D. (2006). The metacognitive loop: Enhancing reinforcement learning with metacognitive monitoring and control for improved perturbation tolerance. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 18(3), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528130600926066
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-2-5
Butterfield, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1491–1494. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.6.1491
Dodson, C. S., Bawa, S., & Krueger, L. E. (2007). Aging, metamemory and high confidence errors: A misrecollection account. Psychology and Aging, 22, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.1.122
Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgment of learning (JOL) and the delayed–JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 12, 355–360.
Dunlosky, J., Serra, M. J., & Baker, J. (2007). Metamemory. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, S. T. Dumas, S. Lewandowsky, & T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 137–161). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2014). Overconfidence in children’s multi-trial judgments of learning. Learning and Instruction, 32, 1–9.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. https://archive.org/details/cognitivedevelop00flav
Koriat, A. (2000). Conscious and unconscious metacognition: A rejoinder. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 193.
Yzerbyt, V. Y. (Ed.). (2002). Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions. SAGE Publications.
Metcalfe, J. (2008). Evolution of metacognition. In J. Dunlosky & R. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 29–46). New York: Psychology Press.
Metcalfe, J., & Eich, T. S. (2019). Memory and truth: Correcting errors with true feedback versus overwriting correct answers with errors. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0153-8
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
Paris, S. G. (1985). Reading strategies, metacognition and motivation. New York. 343 p.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Schwartz, B. L. (2006). Tip-of-the-tongue states as metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 149–158.
Touroutoglou, A., & Efklides, A. (2010). Cognitive interruption as an object of metacognitive monitoring: Feeling of difficulty and surprise. In Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 171–208). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Psychological Journal