Abstract
Spellman and Bjork (this issue) have proposed an explanation of our earlier findings in which people's accuracy at predicting their subsequent recall proved greater when their judgments of learning (JOLs) were delayed until shortly after study than when made immediately after study (the delayed-JOL effect) The empirically testable portion of Spellman and Bjork's explanation does not account for three relevant kinds of data (some already published and some newly presented here), including one replicated finding that disconfirms their core assumption Nevertheless, Spellman and Bjorks commentary has helped us sharpen our ideas both about what will have to be explained and about what form of explanation will be needed At present, there is not yet an adequate scientific explanation for the delayed-JOL effect
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.