Effective learning involves not only the ability to quickly acquire knowledge and skills, but also the capacity to accurately monitor one’s ongoing learning progress. The present research probed the relation between learning ability and monitoring accuracy. A meta-analysis (Study 1, N = 2,406) counterintuitively found that individuals with superior learning ability exhibited slightly poorer monitoring accuracy (measured as the resolution of judgments of learning). Study 2 reanalyzed the meta-analysis data and observed that expert learners remembered more items they erroneously believed they would not remember, and this underconfidence in expert learners led to a negative association between learning ability and monitoring accuracy. Studies 3 (N = 102, adults aged 18–23) and 4 (N = 481, adults aged 18–59) conceptually replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 in controlled experiments. These findings challenge the conventional wisdom that good learners are also good monitors, suggesting instead that expert learners are actually the ones with monitoring deficits.
AlickeM. D.KlotzM. L.BreitenbecherD. L.YurakT. J.VredenburgD. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 804–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.804
2.
ArgoteL. (2013). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5
BrownA. L.BransfordJ. D.FerraraR. A.CampioneJ. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In FlavellJ. H.MarkhamE. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). Wiley.
5.
BryceD.KattnerF.BirngruberT.WellingerhofP. (2023). Monitoring accuracy suffers when working memory demands increase: Evidence of a dependent relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(12), 1909–1922. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001262
6.
*ChangM.BrainerdC. J. (2023). Changed-goal or cue-strengthening? Examining the reactivity of judgments of learning with the dual-retrieval model. Metacognition and Learning, 18(1), 183–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09321-y
7.
CheungM. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968
8.
de LeeuwJ. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
FanT.ZhaoW.SunB.LiuS.YinY.XuM.HuX.YangC.LuoL. (2025). A normative database of Swahili–Chinese paired associates. Behavior Research Methods, 57(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02531-z
13.
*FanT.ZhengJ.HuX.SuN.YinY.YangC.LuoL. (2021). The contribution of metamemory beliefs to the font size effect on judgments of learning: Is word frequency a moderating factor?PLOS ONE, 16(9), Article e0257547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257547
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
15.
FlavellJ. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231–236). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032646527-16
16.
FlavellJ. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In DicksonW. P. (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35–60). Academic Press.
FlemingS. M.RyuJ.GolfinosJ. G.BlackmonK. E. (2014). Domain-specific impairment in metacognitive accuracy following anterior prefrontal lesions. Brain, 137(10), 2811–2822. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu221
19.
GignacG. E.ZajenkowskiM. (2020). The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data. Intelligence, 80, Article 101449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449
GriffinT. D.WileyJ.ThiedeK. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.1.93
22.
GrünkeM. (2006). Zur Effektivität von Fördermethoden bei Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Lernstörungen: Eine Synopse vorliegender Metaanalysen [On the effectiveness of intervention methods for children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A synopsis of existing meta-analyses]. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 15(4), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-5403.15.4.239
23.
HandelM.HarderB.DreselM. (2020). Enhanced monitoring accuracy and test performance: Incremental effects of judgment training over and above repeated testing. Learning and Instruction, 65, Article 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101245
24.
HartwigM. K.WasC. A.IsaacsonR. M.DunloskyJ. (2012). General knowledge monitoring as a predictor of in-class exam performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02038.x
25.
HasselhornM.HagerW. (1989). Prediction accuracy and memory performance: Correlational and experimental tests of a metamemory hypothesis. Psychological Research, 51(3), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00309310
26.
JansenR. A.RaffertyA. N.GriffithsT. L. (2021). A rational model of the Dunning–Kruger effect supports insensitivity to evidence in low performers. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(6), 756–763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01057-0
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
29.
KruegerJ.MuellerR. A. (2002). Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.180
30.
KrugerJ.DunningD. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
31.
LiS.LiuY.JingA.WangY. (2024). The effects of multitasking on metacognitive monitoring in primary and secondary school students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 242, Article 105908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105908
32.
MendesP. S.LunaK.AlbuquerqueP. B. (2019). Word frequency effects on judgments of learning: More than just beliefs. The Journal of General Psychology, 148(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1706073
33.
*MendesP. S.UndorfM. (2022). On the pervasive effect of word frequency in metamemory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(8), 1411–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211053329
34.
MyersS. J.RhodesM. G.HausmanH. E. (2020). Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test. Memory & Cognition, 48(5), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01025-5
35.
NelsonT. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109
NietfeldJ. L.SchrawG. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596583
38.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
39.
RahnevD.DesenderK.LeeA. L. F.AdlerW. T.Aguilar-LleydaD.AkdoganB.ArbuzovaP.AtlasL. Y.BalciF.BangJ. W.BegueI.BirneyD. P.BradyT. F.Calder-TravisJ.ChetverikovA.ClarkT. K.DavrancheK.DenisonR. N.DildineT. C.. . . ZylberbergA. (2020). The confidence database. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0813-1
40.
*RiversM. L.DunloskyJ.JanesJ. L.WitherbyA. E.TauberS. K. (2023). Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items. Memory & Cognition, 51(7), 1547–1561. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01417-3
41.
*RiversM. L.JanesJ. L.DunloskyJ.WitherbyA. E.TauberS. K. (2023). Exploring the role of attentional reorienting in the reactive effects of judgments of learning on memory performance. Journal of Intelligence, 11(8), 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080164
42.
RobeyA. M.DoughertyM. R.ButtaccioD. R. (2017). Making retrospective confidence judgments improves learners’ ability to decide what not to study. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1683–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617718800
43.
SiegelA. L. M.CastelA. D. (2019). Age-related differences in metacognition for memory capacity and selectivity. Memory, 27(9), 1236–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1645859
44.
SmallS. A.SternY.TangM.MayeuxR. (1999). Selective decline in memory function among healthy elderly. Neurology, 52(7), 1392–1396. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.52.7.1392
45.
SmithF. X.WasC. A. (2019). Knowledge monitoring calibration: Individual differences in sensitivity and specificity as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2019.4.006
46.
SoaresJ. S.StormB. C. (2022). Does taking multiple photos lead to a photo-taking-impairment effect?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(6), 2211–2218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02149-2
47.
StiglerS. M. (1997). Regression towards the mean, historically considered. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 6(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029700600202
48.
*TauberS. K.DunloskyJ. (2012). Can older adults accurately judge their learning of emotional information?Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 924–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028447
49.
*TauberS. K.WitherbyA. E. (2019). Do judgments of learning modify older adults’ actual learning?Psychology and Aging, 34(6), 836–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000376
50.
TouronD. R.OranskyN.MeierM. E.HinesJ. C. (2010). Metacognitive monitoring and strategic behaviour in working memory performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(8), 1533–1551. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903418937
51.
UndorfM.BröderA. (2021). Metamemory for pictures of naturalistic scenes: Assessment of accuracy and cue utilization. Memory & Cognition, 49(7), 1405–1422. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01170-5
52.
*UndorfM.SöllnerA.BröderA. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 46(4), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0780-6
53.
Van GogT.KesterL.PaasF. (2011). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 584–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1726
54.
VlachH. A.BredemannC. A.KraftC. (2019). To mass or space? Young children do not possess adults’ incorrect biases about spaced learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 183, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.02.003
55.
VuorreM.MetcalfeJ. (2022). Measures of relative metacognitive accuracy are confounded with task performance in tasks that permit guessing. Metacognition and Learning, 17(2), 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09257-1
56.
WitherbyA. E.CarpenterS. K.SmithA. M. (2023). Exploring the relationship between prior knowledge and metacognitive monitoring accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 18(2), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09344-z
57.
*WitherbyA. E.TauberS. K.GoodrichM. (2022). People hold mood-congruent beliefs about memory but do not use these beliefs when monitoring their learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(4), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001096
58.
YangC.PottsR.ShanksD. R. (2017). Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1073–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000363
59.
*YinY.LiB.HuX.GuoX.YangC.LuoL. (2023). The relationship between dispositional mindfulness and relative accuracy of judgments of learning: The moderating role of test anxiety. Journal of Intelligence, 11(7), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070132
60.
*ZimdahlM. F.UndorfM. (2021). Hindsight bias in metamemory: Outcome knowledge influences the recollection of judgments of learning. Memory, 29(5), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1919144
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.
