Monitoring memory errors: the influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning

The current study examined the degree to which predictions of memory performance made immediately or at a delay are sensitive to confidently held memory illusions. Participants studied unrelated pairs of words and made judgements of learning (JOLs) for each item, either immediately or after a delay. Half of the unrelated pairs (deceptive items; e.g., nurse-dollar) had a semantically related competitor (e.g., doctor) that was easily accessible when given a test cue (e.g., nurse-do_ _ _r) and half had no semantically related competitor (control items; e.g., subject-dollar). Following the study phase, participants were administered a cued recall test. Results from Experiment 1 showed that memory performance was less accurate for deceptive compared with control items. In addition, delaying judgement improved the relative accuracy of JOLs for control items but not for deceptive items. Subsequent experiments explored the degree to which the relative accuracy of delayed JOLs for deceptive items improved as a result of a warning to ensure that retrieved memories were accurate (Experiment 2) and corrective feedback regarding the veracity of information retrieved prior to making a JOL (Experiment 3). In all, these data suggest that delayed JOLs may be largely insensitive to memory errors unless participants are provided with feedback regarding memory accuracy.     

Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning

Previous studies have suggested that perceptual information regarding to-be-remembered words in the study phase affects the accuracy of judgement of learning (JOL). However, few have investigated whether the perceptual information in the JOL phase influences JOL accuracy. This study examined the influence of cue word perceptual information in the JOL phase on immediate and delayed JOL accuracy through changes in cue word font size. In Experiment 1, large-cue word pairs had significantly higher mean JOL magnitude than small-cue word pairs in immediate JOLs and higher relative accuracy than small-cue pairs in delayed JOLs, but font size had no influence on recall performance. Experiment 2 increased the JOL time, and mean JOL magnitude did not reliably differ for large-cue compared with small-cue pairs in immediate JOLs. However, the influence on relative accuracy still existed in delayed JOLs. Experiment 3 increased the familiarity of small-cue words in the delayed JOL phase by adding a lexical decision task. The results indicated that cue word font size no longer affected relative accuracy in delayed JOLs. The three experiments in our study indicated that the perceptual information regarding cue words in the JOL phase affects immediate and delayed JOLs in different ways.     

Monitoring memory errors: The influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning

The current study examined the degree to which predictions of memory performance made immediately or at a delay are sensitive to confidently held memory illusions. Participants studied unrelated pairs of words and made judgements of learning (JOLs) for each item, either immediately or after a delay. Half of the unrelated pairs (deceptive items; e.g., nurse–dollar) had a semantically related competitor (e.g., doctor) that was easily accessible when given a test cue (e.g., nurse–do_ _ _r) and half had no semantically related competitor (control items; e.g., subject–dollar). Following the study phase, participants were administered a cued recall test. Results from Experiment 1 showed that memory performance was less accurate for deceptive compared with control items. In addition, delaying judgement improved the relative accuracy of JOLs for control items but not for deceptive items. Subsequent experiments explored the degree to which the relative accuracy of delayed JOLs for deceptive items improved as a result of a warning to ensure that retrieved memories were accurate (Experiment 2) and corrective feedback regarding the veracity of information retrieved prior to making a JOL (Experiment 3). In all, these data suggest that delayed JOLs may be largely insensitive to memory errors unless participants are provided with feedback regarding memory accuracy.     

When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the “Displaced-JOL effect”

Judgments of learning (JOL) made after a delay more accurately predict subsequent recall than JOLs made immediately after learning. One explanation is that delayed JOLs involve retrieving information about the target item from secondary memory, whereas immediate JOLs involve retrieval from primary memory. One view of working memory claims that information in primary memory is displaced to secondary memory when attention is shifted to a secondary task. Thus, immediate JOLs might be as accurate as delayed JOLs if an intervening task displaces the target item from primary memory, requiring retrieval from secondary memory, prior to making the JOL. In four experiments, participants saw related word-pairs and made JOLs predicting later recall of the item. In Experiment 1, delayed JOLs were more accurate than JOLs made shortly after learning, regardless of whether a secondary task intervened between learning and JOL. In Experiments 2–4, the secondary task demands increased and JOLs made shortly after learning with an intervening task were just as accurate as delayed JOLs, and both were more accurate than immediate JOLs with no intervening task (Experiment 4). These results are consistent with a retrieval-based account of JOLs, and demonstrate that the “delayed-JOL effect” can be obtained without a long delay.     

A model for stochastic drift in memory strength to account for judgments of learning

Previous research has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) made immediately after encoding have a low correlation with actual cued-recall performance, whereas the correlation is high for delayed judgments. In this article, the authors propose a formal theory describing the stochastic drift of memory strength over the retention interval to account for the delayed-JOL effect. This is done by first decomposing the aggregated memory strength into exponential functions with slow and fast memory traces. The mean aggregated memory strength shows power-function forgetting curves. The drift of the memory strength is large for immediate JOLs (causing a low predictability) and weak for delayed JOLs (causing a high predictability). Consistent with empirical data, the model makes a novel prediction of JOL asymmetry, or that immediate weak JOLs are more predictive of future performance than are immediate strong JOLs. The JOL distributions for immediate and delayed JOLs are also accounted for.     

延迟学习判断研究的发展与展望

延迟学习判断是学习判断的一种形式,是指在材料学习完以后间隔一段时间才发生的学习判断。在与即时学习判断的对比研究中发现,延迟学习判断具有较高的相对准确性,这种现象被称为延迟学习判断效应。研究者进行了大量的研究并提出了多种理论来解释这种延迟学习判断效应。随着研究的不断深入,延迟学习判断的研究从研究指标、研究方法甚至是研究的理论基础都在不断更新。延迟学习判断的研究进展,包括主要理论和相关实验,以及最新研究成果将被介绍。最后,文章梳理了延迟JOL的研究进程,并指出了未来的研究方向。     

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.     

Metacognitive monitoring during criterion learning: When and why are judgments accurate?

Research on metacognitive judgment accuracy during retrieval practice has increased in recent years. However, prior work had not systematically evaluated item-level judgment accuracy and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy in a criterion-learning paradigm (in which items are practiced until correctly recalled during encoding). Understanding these relationships during criterion learning has important theoretical implications for self-regulated learning frameworks, and also has applied implications for student learning: If the factors that influence metacognitive judgments are not predictive of subsequent test performance, students may make poor decisions during self-regulated learning. In the present experiments, participants engaged in test–restudy practice until items were recalled correctly. Once a given item reached criterion, participants made an immediate or delayed judgment of learning (JOL) for the item. A final cued-recall test occurred 30 min later. We examined judgment accuracy (the relationship between JOLs and test performance) and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy by evaluating cue utilization (the relationship between cues and JOLs) and cue diagnosticity (the relationship between cues and test performance). Immediate JOLs were only modestly related to subsequent test performance, and further analyses revealed that the cues related to JOLs were only weakly predictive of test accuracy. However, delaying JOLs improved both the accuracy of the JOLs and the diagnosticity of the cues that influenced judgments.     

Using the past to predict the future

This research addressed three issues. First, we examined whether retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) and judgments of learning (JOLs) assess memory differently. Second, we examined the relative accuracy of JOLs and RCJs at predicting future recall performance. Third, we examined whether making JOLs improves subsequent recall better than making RCJs or making no metacognitive judgment. Results suggest that RCJs and JOLs are both based on retrievability, but that participants use their memory differently when making JOLs. RCJs were more accurate than JOLs at predicting future recall for some subsets of items, but the reverse was true for other subsets of items. Finally, eventual recall performance was facilitated when participants made JOLs but not when they made RCJs, suggesting that the JOL task helps to improve people's learning of the items.     

Predicting memory performance under conditions of proactive interference: Immediate and delayed judgments of learning

Four experiments examined the monitoring accuracy of immediate and delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) under conditions of proactive interference (PI). PI was produced using paired-associate learning tasks that conformed to variations of classic A–B, A–D paradigms. Results revealed that the relative monitoring accuracy of interference items was better for delayed than for immediate JOLs. However, delayed JOLs were overconfident for interference items, but not for items devoid of interference. Intrusions retrieved prior to delayed JOLs produced inflated predictions of performance. These results show that delayed JOLs enhance monitoring accuracy in PI situations, except when intrusions are mistaken for target responses.     

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.     

An investigation of students' knowledge of the delayed judgements of learning effect

Judgements of learning (JOL) of paired associates can be made immediately after learning or after a delay, while viewing the first word (cue) only or both words (cue–target) in a pair. Delayed cue-only judgements are more related to subsequent memory performance than delayed cue–target, immediate cue-only, or immediate cue–target judgements. In two experiments we tested students' knowledge of this delayed JOL effect and whether their knowledge increases as a function of task experience (Experiment 2). The majority of the participants did not choose the more effective judgement strategy and they did not systematically alter their behaviour as a function of task experience. Instead, a subset of the participants selected judgement strategies on the basis of a learning goal, that is, a strategy that let them restudy both words in a pair. In sum, most students appear to be unaware of the powerful influence of delayed cue-only JOLs on monitoring accuracy.     

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs)

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information-such as memory failure-to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.     

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs)

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information—such as memory failure—to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.     

The effects of categorical relatedness on judgements of learning (JOLs)

On-line monitoring during study can be influenced by the relatedness shared between the cue and target of a paired associate. We examined the effects on people's judgements of learning (JOLs) of a different kind of relatedness, which occurs in a list organised into sets of categorically related words and unrelated words. In two experiments, participants studied a list of words organised into a series of sets of four categorically related words or four unrelated words. In Experiment 1, JOLs were made immediately after each word had been studied, and JOL magnitude was greater for related than unrelated words. In Experiment 2, JOLs were delayed after study and, as expected, they were substantially greater for related sets of words. Serial position effects (an increase in JOL magnitude across the words of a related set) were evident with immediate JOLs but not with delayed JOLs. The relatedness effect was not present early in the list for immediate JOLs but was present throughout the list for delayed JOLs. We conclude by discussing some preliminary explanations for these new phenomena.     

The effects of categorical relatedness on judgements of learning (JOLs)

On-line monitoring during study can be influenced by the relatedness shared between the cue and target of a paired associate. We examined the effects on people's judgements of learning (JOLs) of a different kind of relatedness, which occurs in a list organised into sets of categorically related words and unrelated words. In two experiments, participants studied a list of words organised into a series of sets of four categorically related words or four unrelated words. In Experiment 1, JOLs were made immediately after each word had been studied, and JOL magnitude was greater for related than unrelated words. In Experiment 2, JOLs were delayed after study and, as expected, they were substantially greater for related sets of words. Serial position effects (an increase in JOL magnitude across the words of a related set) were evident with immediate JOLs but not with delayed JOLs. The relatedness effect was not present early in the list for immediate JOLs but was present throughout the list for delayed JOLs. We conclude by discussing some preliminary explanations for these new phenomena.     

The testing effect as a function of explicit testing instructions and judgments of learning

During study, people monitor their learning; the output of this monitoring is captured in so-called judgments of learning (JOLs). JOLs predict later recall better if they are made after a slight delay, instead of immediately after study (the delayed JOL effect). According to the self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) hypothesis delayed JOLs are based on covert retrieval attempts from long-term memory, and successful retrieval attempts in themselves enhance learning (the testing effect). We compared memory for 40 Swahili-Swedish paired associates after a week as a function of three different learning conditions, namely study plus (i) explicitly instructed self-testing, (ii) delayed JOLs, or (iii) less self-testing. We showed that repeated delayed JOLs lead to a memory improvement that does not differ significantly from a comparable condition where the participants are explicitly testing memory, and both the latter groups performed reliably better than a group that self-tested less. The results suggest that delayed JOLs improve long-term retention as efficiently as explicit memory testing and lend support to the SFP hypothesis.     

Learning style,judgements of learning,and learning of verbal and visual information

The concept of learning style is immensely popular despite the lack of evidence showing that learning style influences performance. This study tested the hypothesis that the popularity of learning style is maintained because it is associated with subjective aspects of learning, such as judgements of learning (JOLs). Preference for verbal and visual information was assessed using the revised Verbalizer‐Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ). Then, participants studied a list of word pairs and a list of picture pairs, making JOLs (immediate, delayed, and global) while studying each list. Learning was tested by cued recall. The results showed that higher VVQ verbalizer scores were associated with higher immediate JOLs for words, and higher VVQ visualizer scores were associated with higher immediate JOLs for pictures. There was no association between VVQ scores and recall or JOL accuracy. As predicted, learning style was associated with subjective aspects of learning but not objective aspects of learning.     

Effects of Problem Solving after Worked Example Study on Primary School Children's Monitoring Accuracy

Research on expository text has shown that the accuracy of students' judgments of learning (JOLs) can be improved by instructional interventions that allow students to test their knowledge of the text. The present study extends this research, investigating whether allowing students to test the knowledge they acquired from studying a worked example by means of solving an identical problem, either immediately or delayed, would enhance JOL accuracy. Fifth grade children (i) gave an immediate JOL, (ii) a delayed JOL, (iii) solved a problem immediately and then gave a JOL, (iv) solved a problem immediately and gave a delayed JOL, or (v) solved a problem at a delay and then gave a JOL. Results show that problem solving after example study improved children's JOL accuracy (i.e., overestimation decreased). However, no differences in the accuracy of restudy indications were found. Results are discussed in relation to cue utilization when making JOLs. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The contributions of anchoring and past-test performance to the underconfidence-with-practice effect

In the underconfidence-with-practice effect, people's judgments of learning (JOLs) typically underestimate memory performance across multiple study-test phases. Whereas the past-test hypothesis suggests that this underconfidence stems from participants' reliance on earlier test performance to make subsequent JOLs (despite new learning), the anchoring hypothesis suggests that the underconfidence stems from participants' reliance on a fixed psychological anchor point low on the JOL scale to make their JOLs. To contrast the predictions of these hypotheses, we had college students study, make JOLs, and test over several dozen paired-associate items across two study-test phases. We parametrically manipulated the presence or absence of testing and judging within participants during Phase 1. Contrary to the past-test hypothesis, items tested during Phase 1 demonstrated less underconfidence during Phase 2 than did nontested items. Furthermore, participants did not increase JOLs from Phase 1 to Phase 2 for items that they had not recalled or for items that had not been tested at all, suggesting that the underconfidence stemmed largely from participants' overreliance on a psychological anchor point to make their JOLs. Past test performance, however, seems to be a major cue that participants use to adjust their JOLs away from the anchor, reducing underconfidence. This was most evident when we used a between-participants manipulation (Exp. 2) to cause our participants to anchor their JOLs either high or low on the JOL scale, producing differential underconfidence independent of any adjustment. Taken together, these results support the anchoring hypothesis over the past-test hypothesis for explaining underconfidence with practice.