Lack of pervasiveness of the underconfidence-with-practice effect: boundary conditions and an explanation via anchoring

The authors investigated whether underconfidence in judgments of learning (JOLs) is pervasive across multiple study-test trials as suggested by A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, and H. Ma'ayan (2002) or whether underconfidence with practice (UWP) might be a kind of anchoring-and-adjustment effect, such that the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the UWP effect depends on whether recall is above a psychological anchor. Participants studied normatively difficult items or normatively easy items and made immediate JOLs or delayed JOLs. The UWP effect occurred for easy items, but for difficult items an overconfidence-with-practice (OWP) effect occurred for delayed JOLs and no bias occurred for immediate JOLs. The systematic occurrence of all 3 outcomes establishes boundary conditions for the UWP effect and confirms the hypothesis that underconfidence (or the lack thereof) may arise at least in part from an anchoring-and-adjustment mechanism.     

Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect

The delayed-JOL effect is the finding in which judgments of learning (JOLs) are more accurate at predicting eventual recall when they are made a short time after study rather than immediately after study. The present research replicated this effect and found that the kind of cue that is used for JOLs is critical. In particular, following the study of stimulus-response paired associates, there is an extremely robust delayed-JOL effect when the cue for JOLs is the stimulus alone (every one of 45 subjects showed the effect); however, there is little, if any, delayed-JOL effect when the cue for JOLs is the stimulus-response pair. This finding has important implications for education: To have the greatest accuracy at predicting eventual recall, a person should make JOLs not immediately after study but, instead, shortly after study (i.e., delayed JOLs) with the cue for JOLs being the stimulus alone. The theoretical mechanisms for the delayed-JOL effect are currently unknown, but some speculations are offered.     

学习和测验经验对学习判断中UWP效应的影响

针对重复学习判断中出现的练习伴随低估效应（UWP效应）,目前存在多种理论解释。本研究基于过去测验记忆假说,在学习阶段和测验阶段引入两种判断：学习判断准确性的判断和回溯性信心判断,通过两个实验考察学习经验和测验经验对UWP效应的影响。结果发现：在学习判断中学习判断准确性的判断和回溯性信心判断均消除了UWP效应,间接证明了学习和测验经验均影响到UWP效应的出现。     

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.     

Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test

Monitoring one's knowledge during study is susceptible to a foresight bias (Koriat and Bjork, 2005). Judgments of learning (JOLs) are inflated whenever information that is present at study and absent, but solicited, at test, such as the targets in cue-target paired associates, highlights aspects of cues that are less apparent when those cues are presented alone. The present findings demonstrate that foresight bias can be alleviated by study-test experience (Experiment 1), particularly test experience (Experiments 2 and 3), and by delaying JOLs after study (Experiment 4) and that both foresight bias and its alleviation have behavioral consequences, as measured by study time allocation (Experiment 5). Collectively, the findings suggest that overconfidence and misallocation of study time arise from a mismatch that is inherent to education--that the answer is present at study and absent at test--and that alleviating the problem requires creating conditions at study that sensitize learners to retrieval conditions at test.     

小学高年级学生的学习判断绝对准确性及预见偏差

本研究以小学高年级学生为被试,选取高熟悉度的具体名词组成的联结词对为实验材料,考察不同判断模式下学习判断的准确性及预见偏差。研究发现:(1)小学高年级学生的学习判断绝对准确性存在年级差异。总体来看,小学六年级学生在即时判断和延迟判断模式下都具有较好的绝对准确性,而四年级和五年级学生在即时判断时出现显著的高估,而在延迟判断模式下具有较好的绝对准确性。具体分析正向词对和反向词对的准确性发现,在即时判断模式下,五、六年级学生的正向联结词对有较好的准确性,而四年级的正向联结词对出现高估;三个年级的学生的反向词对都出现高估。在延迟判断模式下,三个年级学生在正向词对和反向词对上都有较好的准确性。(2)小学五年级学生的学习判断开始出现预见偏差。(3)延迟判断能够提高小学高年级学生的学习判断准确性,减小甚至消除预见偏差。     

Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning

The relation between subjects’ predicted and actual memory performance is a central issue in the domain of metacognition. In the present study, we examined the influence of item similarity and associative strength on judgments of learning (JOLs) in a cued recall task. We hypothesized that encoding fluency would cause a foresight bias, so that subjects would overestimate recall of identical pairs (scale-scale), as compared with strong associates (weight-scale) or unrelated pairs (mask-scale). In Experiment 1, JOLs for identical word pairs were higher than those for related and unrelated pairs, but later recall of identical pairs was lower than recall of related pairs. In Experiment 2, the effect of encoding fluency (inferred from self-paced study time) was examined, and a similar pattern of results was obtained, with subjects spending the least amount of time studying identical pairs. We conclude that overconfidence for identical pairs reflects an assessment of item similarity when JOLs are made, despite associative strength being a better predictor of later retrieval.     

Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study

The monitoring of one's own knowledge during study suffers from an inherent discrepancy between study and test situations: Judgments of learning (JOLs) are made in the presence of information that is absent but solicited during testing. The failure to discount the effects of that information when making JOLs can instill a sense of competence during learning that proves unwarranted during testing. Using a paired-associates task, the authors examined aspects of the cue-target relationships that seemed likely contributors to such illusions of competence. These aspects have the potential to create differential strengths of a priori and a posteriori associations, that is, the probability with which a cue, when presented alone, elicits the corresponding target versus the perceived association between the cue and the target when both are present. The authors argue that the former has the greater influence on later recall, whereas the latter has the greater influence on JOLs.     

学习判断的练习伴随低估效应

学习判断是元认知判断的一种重要形式,是个体对随后的记忆成绩的预测。当个体在多次学习－测验任务中学习词对时,学习判断出现了练习伴随低估效应。研究者对此进行了大量的实验并提出了多种理论,如线索应用模型,提取流畅性假说和基点－校正假说。但是,Koriat等人通过分析发现练习伴随低估效应可能不是单一因素作用的结果,而是多种效应共同影响作用的表现,并由此提出了记忆去偏差假说。文章指出了目前研究中还存在的问题以及未来研究的方向     

The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect

According to the Memory for Past Test (MPT) heuristic, judgments of learning (JOLs) may be based, in part, on memory for the correctness of answers on a previous test. The authors explored MPT as the source of the underconfidence with practice effect (UWP; A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, & H. Ma'ayan, 2002), whereby Trial 1 overconfidence switches to underconfidence by Trial 2. Immediate and delayed JOLs were contrasted because only immediate JOLs demonstrate UWP. Consistent with MPT for immediate JOLs, Trial 1 test performance better predicted Trial 2 JOLs than did Trial 2 test performance. Delayed JOLs showed the reverse. Furthermore, items forgotten on Trial 1 but remembered on Trial 2 contributed disproportionately to UWP, but only with immediate JOLs.     

Mending metacognitive illusions: a comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures

Previous research indicated that learners experience an illusion of competence during learning (termed foresight bias) because judgments of learning (JOLs) are made in the presence of information that will be absent at test. The authors examined the following 2 procedures for alleviating foresight bias: enhancing learners' sensitivity to mnemonic cues pertaining to ease of retrieval and inducing learners to resort to theory-based judgments as a basis for JOLs. Both procedures proved effective in mending metacognitive illusions-as reflected in JOLs and self-regulation of study time-but only theory-based debiasing yielded transfer to new items. The results support the notion that improved metacognition is 1 key to optimizing transfer but also that educating subjective experience does not guarantee generalization to new situations.     

Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: The utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning

Although memory researchers know about primacy and recency effects, it is unclear whether students are aware of these effects and incorporate them when making judgments of learning (JOLs). The present research examined how participants use serial position information (extrinsic cues) when making JOLs after studying each item and showed that participants rely on the intrinsic qualities of the items and underestimate primacy and recency effects. However, when participants made JOLs prior to studying each item and engaged in multiple study-test sessions, their JOLs accurately reflected recall, as well as when serial position information was explicitly provided during the study phase. The findings are interpreted in a cue utilization framework and suggest that under certain conditions, participants can predict primacy and recency effects.     

Immediate judgments of learning are insensitive to implicit interference effects at retrieval

We conducted three experiments to determine whether metamemory predictions at encoding, immediate judgments of learning (IJOLs) are sensitive to implicit interference effects that will occur at retrieval. Implicit interference was manipulated by varying the association set size of the cue (Experiments 1 and 2) or the target (Experiment 3). The typical finding is that memory is worse for large-set-size cues and targets, but only when the target is studied alone and later prompted with a related cue (extralist). When the pairs are studied together (intralist), recall is the same regardless of set size; set size effects are eliminated. Metamemory predictions at retrieval, such as delayed JOLs (DJOLs) and feeling-of-knowing (FOK) judgments accurately reflect implicit interference effects (e.g., Eakin & Hertzog, 2006. In all three experiments, we found that DJOLs and FOKs accurately predicted set size effects on retrieval but that IJOLs did not. The findings provide further evidence that metamemory predictions are inferred from information other than direct access to the state of the memory trace, as well as indicate that inferences are based on different sources depending on when in the memory process predictions are made.     

The role of age of acquisition in memory: effects on judgements of learning and recall

Judgements of learning (JOLs) are self-made predictions of the likelihood that one will later recall information. The influence of stimulus characteristics on JOLs and recall continues to receive attention, yet there are still a number of unexplored lexical word features that may exert an effect on mnemonic processing. Using a standard cue-target paradigm, we focused on the role of word age of acquisition (AoA) and evaluated the role of both cue and target AoA on responses. We replicated the robust delayed-JOL effect and used a novel items analysis approach to examine the relationship between intrinsic word features and accuracy and reaction times for both JOLs and recall. A consistent effect of target AoA was found, even after controlling for a range of covariates previously shown to impact JOLs and recall. These results expand the role of AoA in word processing and suggest that it is a key variable in memory and metacognition; they also support Koriat's (1997) cue utilization framework.     

Multiple study trials and judgments of learning

We compared judgments of learning (JOLs) that were made either (a) after 1 study trial, (b) 2 study trials, or (c) in-between the 1st and 2nd study trials. In regard to the absolute accuracy of JOLs at predicting subsequent recall, we replicated previous findings of an underconfidence-with-practice effect for immediate JOLs and report for the first time a new finding of an underconfidence-with-practice effect for delayed JOLs (i.e., delayed JOLs after one trial overestimated the likelihood of subsequent recall, whereas delayed JOLs after two trials underestimated that likelihood). Also, although delayed JOLs always had a greater relative accuracy than did immediate JOLs, the relative accuracy of immediate and delayed JOLs was approximately the same after 1 versus 2 study trials. These results demonstrate that additional study trials affect the absolute accuracy of all JOLs but not the relative accuracy of any JOLs. Thus an increase in the number of study trials produced an increasing bias to be underconfident about the subsequent likelihood of recall but did not affect people's ordering of which items had been more (versus less) well-learned.     

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.     

小学生预见性偏差及其削弱

采用三种不同去偏差方法,对不同年龄儿童的预见性偏差及削弱进行探讨。实验结果发现,二年级和三年级出现了预见性偏差,五年级没有出现预见性偏差;对于二年级儿童,只有基于理论的去偏差方法才能削弱预见性偏差。而三年级儿童,三种方法都能削弱预见性偏差。结果说明帮助他们建立正确的元认知理论可以有效提高他们元认知监测水平。     

小学生预见性偏差及其削弱

采用三种不同去偏差方法,对不同年龄儿童的预见性偏差及削弱进行探讨。实验结果发现,二年级和三年级出现了预见性偏差,五年级没有出现预见性偏差;对于二年级儿童,只有基于理论的去偏差方法才能削弱预见性偏差。而三年级儿童,三种方法都能削弱预见性偏差。结果说明帮助他们建立正确的元认知理论可以有效提高他们元认知监测水平。     

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.     

WHEN PREDICTIONS CREATE REALITY:

Abstract —Nelson and Dunlosky (Psychological Science, July 1991) reported that subjects making judgments of learning (JOLs) can be extremely ac curate at predicting subsequent recall performance on a paired-associate task when the JOL task is delayed for a short while after study They argued that this result Is surprising given the results of earlier research, as well as their own current experiment, indicating that JOLs are quite inaccurate when made immediately after study We note that the delayed-JOL procedure used by Nelson and Dunlosky invited covert recall practice (which was reported by their subjects) Retrieval practice is a welt-known determinant of subsequent recall Accordingly, Nelson and Dunlosky s findings can be explained by the simple assumption that people base delayed JOLs on an assessment of retrieval success which in turn influences their retrieval success on the subsequent recall test