Processing Similarity Does Not Improve Metamemory: Evidence Against Transfer-Appropriate Monitoring.

The transfer-appropriate monitoring (TAM) hypothesis of metamemory predicts that judgment of learning (JOL) accuracy should improve when conditions during JOLs closely match conditions of the memory test. The authors devised 5 types of delayed JOLs for paired associates and varied them along with the type of memory test (cued recall or recognition). If the TAM hypothesis is correct, JOL and test type should interact to influence metamemory. Contrary to TAM, metamemory accuracy did not improve when JOL and test conditions matched but instead tended to vary according to whether the answer was apparent at time of JOL. Memory test scores and JOL magnitude were both greater when the correct target was evident during JOLs. Overall, the results are largely consistent with a monitoring retrieval view of delayed JOLs and do not support TAM as a viable account of JOL accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Enhanced memory at delays: Why do judgments of learning improve over time?

Judgments of learning (JOLs) made after a 5-min delay are almost perfectly accurate: the "delayed-JOL effect" (T. O. Nelson & J. Dunlosky, 1991). The mechanisms underlying this phenomenon have been the subject of debate. This study examined the effects of delays and short-term memory (STM) distraction on memory and metamemory (JOLs). STM distraction (2.5–30 s) immediately following encoding increased both JOL accuracy and mean cued recall. However, JOLs made after longer delays (4–5 min) were even more accurate. In addition, making a JOL at longer delays improved cued-recall performance. Conditional probabilities of cued recall (given successful initial retrieval) also increased over time and with interference, indicating that delayed JOLs may alter what they assess. Finally, increased confidence was associated with shorter JOL latencies only at delays. The results are consistent with an accessibility view of metamemory (e.g., A. Koriat, 1993). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance.

The accuracy of students' judgments of learning (JOLs) in predicting recognition vs recall was investigated in 4 experiments. Students studied paired associates and made JOLs, which occurred either immediately after an item had been studied or shortly after an item had been studied. Students then received tests of associative recognition or paired-associate recall. JOL accuracy was greater for delayed JOLs than immediate JOLs, and the accuracy of JOLs was lower in predicting recognition than recall. The latter finding occurred (1) regardless of whether students had anticipated a recall test or a recognition test when making JOLs and (2) regardless of whether JOLs had been cued by only the stimulus of an item or by the entire stimulus-response pair. Correct guessing was shown to contribute to the lower accuracy of students' predictions of recognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Enhanced metamemory at delays: why do judgments of learning improve over time?

Judgments of learning (JOLs) made after a 5-min delay are almost perfectly accurate: the "delayed-JOL effect" (T. O. Nelson & J. Dunlosky, 1991). The mechanisms underlying this phenomenon have been the subject of debate. This study examined the effects of delays and short-term memory (STM) distraction on memory and metamemory (JOLs). STM distraction (2.5-30 s) immediately following encoding increased both JOL accuracy and mean cued recall. However, JOLs made after longer delays (4-5 min) were even more accurate. In addition, making a JOL at longer delays improved cued-recall performance. Conditional probabilities of cued recall (given successful initial retrieval) also increased over time and with interference, indicating that delayed JOLs may alter what they assess. Finally, increased confidence was associated with shorter JOL latencies only at delays. The results are consistent with an accessibility view of metamemory (e.g., A. Koriat, 1993).     

The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review.

Many studies have examined the accuracy of predictions of future memory performance solicited through judgments of learning (JOLs). Among the most robust findings in this literature is that delaying predictions serves to substantially increase the relative accuracy of JOLs compared with soliciting JOLs immediately after study, a finding termed the delayed JOL effect. The meta-analyses reported in the current study examined the predominant theoretical accounts as well as potential moderators of the delayed JOL effect. The first meta-analysis examined the relative accuracy of delayed compared with immediate JOLs across 4,554 participants (112 effect sizes) through gamma correlations between JOLs and memory accuracy. Those data showed that delaying JOLs leads to robust benefits to relative accuracy (g = 0.93). The second meta-analysis examined memory performance for delayed compared with immediate JOLs across 3,807 participants (98 effect sizes). Those data showed that delayed JOLs result in a modest but reliable benefit for memory performance relative to immediate JOLs (g = 0.08). Findings from these meta-analyses are well accommodated by theories suggesting that delayed JOL accuracy reflects access to more diagnostic information from long-term memory rather than being a by-product of a retrieval opportunity. However, these data also suggest that theories proposing that the delayed JOL effect results from a memorial benefit or the match between the cues available for JOLs and those available at test may also provide viable explanatory mechanisms necessary for a comprehensive account. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Metamemory cues and monitoring accuracy: Judging what you know and what you will know.

Three experiments examined metamemory for categorized lists of items. Judgments of learning (JOLs) were obtained from college students either immediately after study or following a brief (at least 30-s) delay. In contrast to past findings (e.g., T. O. Nelson & J. Dunlosky, 1991), no advantage was found for delayed JOLs in Experiment 1, using a standard, prediction-based metamemory cue. In Experiment 2, knowledge-based judgments were elicited, and delayed JOL accuracy improved significantly. The relative efficacy of 4 different metamemory cues was examined in Experiment 3. An interaction between the timing and phrasing of JOL cues was detected: Delayed JOLs were more accurate than immediate JOLs only when knowledge-based cues were used. These results are interpreted in A. Koriat's (1997) cue-utilization framework for JOL accuracy, and they show that the phrasing of metamemory cues can have a substantial impact on monitoring accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Aging and recollection in the accuracy of judgments of learning.

Dual-process theories propose that episodic memory performance reflects both recollection of prior details as well as more automatic influences of the past. The authors explored the idea that recollection mediates the accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs) and may also help explain age differences in JOL accuracy. Young and older adults made immediate JOLs at study and then completed recognition or recall tests that included a recollect/familiar judgment. JOLs were found to be strongly related to recollected items but not to items remembered on the basis of familiarity. The pattern was weaker in older adults, consistent with age-related declines in recollection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Familiarity and retrieval processes in delayed judgments of learning.

Two processes are postulated to underlie delayed judgments of learning (JOLs)--cue familiarity and target retrievability. The two processes are distinguishable because the familiarity-based judgments are thought to be faster than the retrieval-based processes, because only retrieval-based JOLs should enhance the relative accuracy of the correlations between the JOLs and criterion test performance, and because only retrieval-based judgments should enhance memory. To test these predictions, in three experiments, the authors either speeded people's JOLs or allowed them to be unspeeded. The relative accuracy of the JOLs in predicting performance on the criterion test was higher for the unspeeded JOLs than for the speeded JOLs, as predicted. The unspeeded JOL conditions showed enhanced memory as compared with the speeded JOL conditions, as predicted. Finally, the unspeeded JOLs were sensitive to manipulations that modified recallability of the target, whereas the speeded JOLs were selectively sensitive to experimental variations in the familiarity of the cues. Thus, all three of the predictions about the consequences of the two processes potentially underlying delayed JOLs were borne out. A model of the processes underlying delayed JOLs based on these and earlier results is presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Metacognition in prospective memory: Are performance predictions accurate?

This study investigated the role of metacognition in event-based prospective memory. The aim of the study was to explore the relation between an item-level prediction (judgments of learning, JOL) and actual performance. The task and JOLs allowed a differentiation of the two components of prospective memory tasks (retrospective vs. prospective). Results revealed that individuals' predictions were (moderately) accurate for delayed JOLs but not for JOLs that had to be given immediately after task encoding. Moreover, data revealed an underconfidence-with-practice effect only for the retrospective component. For the prospective component, a substantial and general level of underconfidence in individuals' prediction–performance ratios was observed. The importance of metacognitive factors for prospective memory is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Predicting One's Own Forgetting: The Role of Experience-Based and Theory-Based Processes.

The authors examined the hypothesis that judgments of learning (JOL), if governed by processing fluency during encoding, should be insensitive to the anticipated retention interval. Indeed, neither item-by-item nor aggregate JOLs exhibited "forgetting" unless participants were asked to estimate recall rates for several different retention intervals, in which case their estimates mimicked closely actual recall rates. These results and others reported suggest that participants can access their knowledge about forgetting but only when theory-based predictions are made, and then only when the notion of forgetting is accentuated either by manipulating retention interval within individuals or by framing recall predictions in terms of forgetting rather than remembering. The authors interpret their findings in terms of the distinction between experience-based and theory-based JOLs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Aging and monitoring associative learning: Is monitoring accuracy spared or impaired?

Mixed lists of associatively related and unrelated paired associates were used to study monitoring of associative learning. Older and younger adults produced above-chance levels of relative accuracy, as measured by intraindividual correlations (γ) of judgments of learning (JOLs) with item recall. JOLs were strongly influenced by relatedness, and this effect was greater for older adults. Relative accuracy was higher for unrelated than for related pairs. Correlations of JOLs with item recall for a randomly yoked learner indicated that access to one's own encoding experiences increased relative accuracy. Both age groups manifested a contrast effect (lower JOLs for unrelated items when mixed with related items). Aging appears to spare monitoring of encoding, even though it adversely affects associative learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How Many Dimensions Underlie Judgments of Learning and Recall? Evidence From State-Trace Methodology.

The authors used state-trace methodology to investigate whether a single dimension (e.g., strength) is sufficient to account for recall and judgments of learning (JOLs) or whether multiple dimensions (e.g., intrinsic and extrinsic factors) are needed. The authors separately manipulated the independent variables of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, determining their state traces for recall and JOLs. In contrast to the supposition that intrinsic cues have similar effects on both recall and JOLs whereas extrinsic cues affect JOLs less strongly than recall (i.e., 2 dimensions underlying recall and JOLs), the authors found repeated support for the sufficiency of a single dimension for both recall and JOLs (not only immediate JOLs but also delayed JOLs) across a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic cues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Age differences in the monitoring of learning: Cross-sectional evidence of spared resolution across the adult life span.

Researchers of metacognitive development in adulthood have exclusively used extreme-age-groups designs. We used a full cross-sectional sample (N = 285, age range: 18–80) to evaluate how associative relatedness and encoding strategies influence judgments of learning (JOLs) in adulthood. Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs. After a cued-recall test, retrospective item strategy reports were collected. Results revealed developmental patterns not available from previous studies (e.g., a linear age-related increase in aggregate JOL resolution across the life span). They also demonstrated the value of investigating multiple cues' influences on JOLs. Multilevel regression models showed that both relatedness and effective strategy use positively and independently influenced JOLs. Furthermore, effective strategy use was responsible for higher resolution of JOLs for unrelated items (relative to related items). The effects of relatedness and strategy use with JOLs did not interact with age. The monitoring of learning is spared by adult development despite age differences in learning itself. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: Evidence for agenda-based monitoring.

Two experiments are reported examining how value and relatedness interact to influence metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Participants studied unrelated and related word pairs, each accompanied by point values denoting how important the items were to remember. These values were presented either before or after each pair in a between-subjects design, and participants made item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs) predicting the likelihood that each item would be remembered later. Results from Experiment 1 showed that participants used value and relatedness as cues to inform their JOLs. Interestingly, JOLs increased as a function of value even in the after condition in which value had no impact on cued recall. Participants in Experiment 2 were permitted to control study time for each item. Results showed that value and relatedness were simultaneously considered when allocating study time. These results support a cue-weighting process in which JOLs and study time allocation are based on multiple cues, which may or may not be predictive of future memory performance, and complements the agenda-based regulation model of study time (Ariel, Dunlosky, & Bailey, 2009) by providing evidence for agenda-based monitoring. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does Retrieval Fluency Contribute to the Underconfidence-With-Practice Effect?

Judgments of learning (JOLs) made during multiple study-test trials underestimate increases in recall performance across those trials, an effect that has been dubbed the underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect. In 3 experiments, the authors examined the contribution of retrieval fluency to the UWP effect for immediate and delayed JOLs. The UWP effect was demonstrated with reliable underconfidence on Trial 2 occurring for both kinds of JOL. However, in contrast to a retrieval-fluency hypothesis, fine-grained analyses indicated that the reliance of JOLs on retrieval fluency contributed minimally to the UWP effect. Our discussion focuses on the status of the retrieval-fluency hypothesis for the UWP effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning.

The authors used paired-associate learning to investigate the hypothesis that the speed of generating an interactive image (encoding fluency) influenced 2 metacognitive judgments: judgments of learning (JOLs) and quality of encoding ratings (QUEs). Results from Experiments 1 and 2 indicated that latency of a keypress indicating successful image formation was negatively related to both JOLs and QUEs even though latency was unrelated to recall. Experiment 3 demonstrated that when concrete and abstract items were mixed in a single list, latency was related to concreteness, judgments, and recall. However, item concreteness and fluency influenced judgments independently of one another. These outcomes suggest an important role of encoding fluency in the formation of metacognitive judgments about learning and future recall. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Recollection-based prospective metamemory judgments are more accurate than those based on confidence: Judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKS).

Five experiments were conducted to examine whether the nature of the information that is monitored during prospective metamemory judgments affected the relative accuracy of those judgments. We compared item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs), which involved participants determining how confident they were that they would remember studied items, with judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKs), which involved participants determining whether studied items would later be accompanied by contextual details (i.e., remembering) or would not (i.e., knowing). JORKs were more accurate than JOLs when remember–know or confidence judgments were made at test and when cued recall was the outcome measure, but not for yes–no recognition. We conclude that the accuracy of metamemory judgments depends on the nature of the information monitored during study and test and that metamemory monitoring can be improved if participants are asked to base their judgments on contextual details rather than on confidence. These data support the contention that metamemory decisions can be based on qualitatively distinct cues, rather than an overall memory strength signal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy.

In 3 experiments, the effects of age on different kinds of metacognitive prediction accuracy were assessed. Participants made global memory predictions and item-by-item memory predictions in a single experimental task. Metacognitive accuracy was evaluated with correlational and more traditional difference-score measures. Difference-score measures were found, in some cases, to be sensitive to level of recall performance. Correlational techniques revealed that older adults monitored learning effectively. Relative to younger adults, they showed equally accurate immediate judgments of learning (JOLs), produced an equivalent delayed-JOL effect, and showed equivalent upgrading in the accuracy of their global prediction from before to after study of test materials. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall.

The authors investigated the theoretical question of whether different kinds of encoding can affect judgments of learning (JOLs) beyond any indirect effects arising from the differences those kinds of encoding produce on the likelihood of recall. They found that JOLs were more accurate after encoding by means of intentional learning than after encoding by means of incidental learning, even when the likelihood of recall did not differ for those kinds of encoding (Experiment 1), and were more accurate when intentional encoding occurred by generating the responses than by reading the responses (Experiment 2). An aggregation effect for JOLs was also discovered: Making JOLs about the likelihood of recall for an aggregate of items yielded less overconfidence (and even underconfidence) in contrast to the typical overconfidence of item-by-item JOLs. The overall pattern of findings suggests that JOLs are theoretically rich and are based on more than whatever underlies the likelihood of recall. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comprehension as a basis for metacognitive judgments: Effects of effort after meaning on recall and metacognition.

We examined free recall and metacognitive judgments of ambiguous sentences studied with and without clues to facilitate their comprehension. Sentences were either studied without clues, with clues meaningfully embedded, or with clues following a 10-s interval delay. After presentation, subjects made judgments of comprehension (JCOMPs) or judgments of learning (JOLs). Puzzling over the meaning of sentences for several seconds prior to receiving the clue enhanced recall compared with studying sentences without clues or with embedded clues. This benefit of effort after meaning was not reflected in JCOMPs or JOLs. Rather, sentences considered relatively easy to understand received higher JOLs regardless of experimental condition. Although effort after meaning enhanced recall, subjects displayed no awareness of this benefit in their judgments. Our study adds to a growing literature showing students’ ignorance of factors affecting their own learning, which have important implications for education. Making learning conditions more difficult, thus requiring students to engage more cognitive effort, often leads to enhanced retention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)