Do delayed judgements of learning reduce metamemory illusions? A meta-analysis

Abstract

Past research has shown that the perceptual characteristics of studied items (e.g., font size) lead to a metamemory illusion, and that delayed judgements of learning (JOLs) are better predictors of memory performance than immediate JOLs. Here, we tested whether delayed JOLs could reduce or eliminate the effect of perceptual characteristics on JOLs and restudy decisions. We adopted a meta-analytic approach and analysed the results of 28 experiments in which participants’ studied items were presented in either large or small font. JOLs and, sometimes, restudy decisions were collected either immediately or after a delay. Finally, participants completed a memory test. The results of the meta-analyses confirmed the effect of the font size on JOLs and restudy decisions. The delayed procedures reliably reduced the effect of perceptual characteristics on JOLs, but the effect was still significant after a delay. For restudy decisions, delayed procedures only reduced numerically the effect. Surprisingly, the meta-analysis also showed a very subtle memory advantage for items presented in large font over small font, although no individual study showed a significant difference and the overall effect size was small. One plausible explanation is that after a delay, information about font size is not available for some items, causing a reduction in the effect. Moreover, our results suggest that the dissociation between memory and metamemory reported previously may not be dissociation at all, but a mistmatched effect of font size on memory and metamemory.

Keywords

Metamemory judgements of learning delayed JOL perceptual characteristics meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alban

M. W.

Kelley

C. M.

(2013). Embodiment meets metamemory: Weight as a cue for metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1628–1634.

Ball

B. H.

Klein

K. N.

Brewer

G. A.

(2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 336–348.

Besken

(2016). Picture-perfect is not perfect for metamemory: Testing the perceptual fluency hypothesis with degraded images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Condition, 42, 1417–1433.

Chen

D.-G.

Peace

K. E.

(2013). Applied meta-analysis with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Cumming

(2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cumming

(2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.

Cumming

Finch

(2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170–180.

Field

A. P.

Gillet

(2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694.

Frank

D. J.

Kuhlmann

B. G.

(2017). More than just beliefs: Experience and beliefs jointly contribute to volume effects on metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 680–693.

10.

*Hu

Zheng

Liu

Luo

(2015). How much do metamemory beliefs contribute to the font-size effect in judgments of learning? PLoS ONE, 10, Article e0142351.

11.

*Hu

Liu

Luo

(2016). Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgment of learning. Memory, 24, 383–398.

12.

Kimball

D. R.

Smith

T. A.

Muntean

W. J.

(2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 923–954.

13.

Koriat

(1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370.

14.

*Kornell

Rhodes

M. G.

Castel

A. D.

Tauber

S. K.

(2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments. Psychological Science, 22, 787–794.

15.

Kruschke

J. K.

(2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Burlington, VT: Academic Press.

16.

Lee

M. D.

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(2014). Bayesian cognitive modelling: A practical course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Leippe

M. R.

Eisenstadt

Rausch

S. M.

(2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194–212.

18.

Xie

(2015). The influence of perceptual information on control processes involved in self-regulating learning: Evidence from item selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1007–1013.

19.

Lindsay

D. S.

(2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832.

20.

Luna

Martín-Luengo

(2012). Confidence-accuracy calibration with general knowledge and eyewitness memory cued recall questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 289–295.

21.

Luna

Martín-Luengo

(2014). The subjective experience of retrieval-induced forgetting. Memory, 22, 813–823.

22.

Luna

Martín-Luengo

Shtyrov

Myachykov

(2016). Judgments of learning for words in vertical space. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1894.

23.

McDonough

I. M.

Gallo

D. A.

(2012). Illusory expectations can affect retrieval-monitoring accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 391–404.

24.

Metcalfe

Dunlosky

(2008). Metamemory. In Roediger

H. L.

(Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory (pp. 349–362). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

25.

*Miele

D. B.

Finn

Molden

D. C.

(2011). Does easily learned mean easily remembered? It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science, 22, 320–324.

26.

Moulin

C. J. A.

Perfect

T. J.

Akhtar

Williams

H. L.

Souchay

(2011). Judgments of learning and study-time allocation: An illustration from neuropsychology. In Higham

P. A.

Leboe

J. P.

(Eds.), Constructions of remembering and metacognition: Essays in honour of Bruce Whittlesea (pp. 167–181). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

*Mueller

M. L.

Dunlosky

(2017). Unpublished raw data.

28.

Mueller

M. L.

Dunlosky

Tauber

S. K.

(2016). The effect of identical word pairs on people’s metamemory judgments: What are the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 781–799.

29.

*Mueller

M. L.

Dunlosky

Tauber

S. K.

Rhodes

M. G.

(2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects of reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12.

30.

Mueller

M. L.

Tauber

S. K.

Dunlosky

(2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 378–384.

31.

Nelson

T. O.

Dunlosky

(1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The ‘delayed-JOL effect’. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.

32.

Nelson

T. O.

Dunlosky

Graf

Narens

(1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–213.

33.

Neuschatz

J. S.

Payne

D. G.

Lampinen

J. M.

Toglia

M. P.

(2001). Assessing the effectiveness of warnings and the phenomenological characteristics of false memories. Memory, 9, 53–71.

34.

Pashler

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(Eds.). (2012). Replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–654.

35.

Price

Harrison

(2017). Examining what prestudy and immediate judgments of learning reveal about the bases of metamemory judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 177–194.

36.

Price

McElroy

Martin

N. J.

(2016). The role of font size and font style in younger and older adults’ predicted and actual recall performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 23, 366–388.

37.

R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org

38.

Rhodes

M. G.

(2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In Dunlosky

Tauber

S. K.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 90–117). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

*Rhodes

M. G.

Castel

A. D.

(2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625.

40.

Rhodes

M. G.

Castel

A. D.

(2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 550–554.

41.

Rhodes

M. G.

Tauber

S. K.

(2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148.

42.

Simons

D. J.

(2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76–80.

43.

*Soderstrom

N. C.

(2012). An investigation of the basis of judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKS) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10217/67949

44.

*Susser

J. A.

Mulligan

N. W.

Besken

(2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41, 1000–1011.

45.

Thiede

K. W.

Dunlosky

(1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.

46.

Ueno

Fastrich

G. M.

Murayama

(2016). Meta-analysis to integrate effect sizes within an article: Possible misuse and type I error inflation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 643–654.

47.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.05 MB