Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Metamemory (The spacing effect (Son (2004), participants studied a series…

- - - - One intrinsic cue in particular appears to strongly drive judgments of learning: fluency. The greater the ease of processing a stimulus, the greater the tendency to believe that it will be recalled in the future.
  - - - Werth & Strack (2003) - fluency plays a significant role in the knew-it-all-along effect. Pp's presented questions plus the corresponding values to participants and asked them to answer them as they thought they would have done without the values. Half the questions were presented in colours that made them easily visible whereas half were in colours that made them less easily visible. Werth and Strack found that numerical estimates assimilated more in the high than the low visibility condition and concluded that the fluency of perception of the high visibility questions misled participants to think that the given value would have easily come to mind even without being given the correct value
- - - - To what extent is metamemory accurate?
      - And what do findings from metamemory research reveal about how memory works?
- - - - Moreover, when Koriat et al. divided all trials up according to the stated JOL (0-10, 11-20, etc) and calculated recall for the items in each JOL bin, they found a very close relationship: items in the lowest JOL bin (0- 10) had a mean JOL of 8% and recall was 8%; items in the next bin (11-20) had a mean JOL of 18% and recall was 25%, and so on. Thus those items which participants tended to recall worst were the ones they previously gave the lowest JOLs to and those which they tended to recall best were the ones they previously gave the highest JOLs to. Consistent with other studies, the data do however show some evidence of underconfidence at low memory levels and overconfidence at high levels.
    - - Koriat et al. In 2 additional groups of their experiment, the procedure was identical except that one of these groups judged how likely it would be that they would remember the pairs a day later (and they were indeed tested a day later) while the final group judged how likely it would be that they would remember the pairs a week later (and they were indeed tested a week later). Unsurprisingly, recall was much poorer in the day group than in the immediate group, and worse still in the week group.
        
        However, the mean JOLs in these additional groups were no
        lower than those in the immediate group! Thus participants were strikingly insensitive to the effects that a long retention interval would have on their memory performance.
      - Yet another example of metamemory inaccuracy comes from research by Potts and Shanks (2014). They presented
        participants with foreign-language (e.g., Euskadi) words pairs in one of two methods. Some word pairs were simply read
        (e.g., igel – frog) for 13 sec. For others the cue word (untxi) was shown for 8 sec during which time participants had to
        guess what it might mean. Participants almost invariably generated incorrect guesses, but they were then shown the
        correct answer (untxi – rabbit) to study for a further 5 sec. On each trial participants also made a JOL, estimating how
        likely they thought it was that they would later recall the correct answer to the cue word.
      - Potts and Shanks (2014) found that participants rated themselves as considerably less likely to remember the generated than the read words. There are at least two intuitive reasons why they might have done this, first because the failure to generate the correct response at study made them aware of how hard it would later be at test, and secondly because they may have been worried that their own generated but incorrect response would intrude into their memory at test. No matter how reasonable their metamemory judgments, they were dramatically inaccurate: generated words were in fact significantly better recalled at test than read ones. Thus participants thought that it would be harder to remember generated than read words but in
        fact it was easier.
    - - Thus, the PRAM methodology allows for better isolation
        of a given independent variable’s locus (or loci)
        of effect on JOL accuracy. The independent variable
        might affect the participant’s discrimination within
        the set of recalled items, discrimination within the set
        of nonrecalled items, discrimination between a recalled
        versus nonrecalled item, or some combination
        of those effects
      - PRAM shows that the bulk of the delayed-JOL
        effect arises from these two factors:
        
        People who are predicting their future recall discriminate
        between items more accurately when
        discriminating between a recalled item versus a
        nonrecalled item (i.e., relatively easy discrimination)
        than when discriminating between two
        recalled items (i.e., relatively difficult discrimination).
        
        For delayed JOLs, most of the relevant discriminations
        are between a recalled item versus a
        nonrecalled item (the relatively easy discrimination)
        and relatively few are between recalled
        items (the relatively difficult discrimination),
        but vice versa for immediate JOLs (i.e., most of
        the relevant discriminations are between recalled
        items).