Judgments of learning depend on how learners interpret study effort

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1624-1637

  Koriat, Asher ^a   Nussinson, Ravit ^b   Ackerman, Rakefet ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF ISRAEL   (Israel)

^c TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Attribution; Fluency; Judgments of learning; Metacognition; Study time

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MOTIVATION; PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; READING; RECALL; SELF CONCEPT; SELF REPORT; TIME; VIDEORECORDING; VISION;

FEMALE; GOALS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LEARNING; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; READING; SELF CONCEPT; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; VIDEO RECORDING; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84925602679     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000009     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Ackerman, R. (2013). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0035098
2. Ackerman, R., & Zalmanov, H. (2012). The persistence of the fluency-confidence association in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1187-1192. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0305-z
3. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219-235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564
4. Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition, 41, 416-428. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0267-4
5. Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 432-447. doi:10.1037/a0015928
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:Freeman.
7. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610-632. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
8. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55
9. Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., & Anderson, M. C. (1998). Varieties of goal-directed forgetting. In J. M. Golding & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 103-137). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Carruthers, P. (2009). How we know our own minds: The relationship between mindreading and metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 121-138. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000545
11. Castel, A. D., Lee, S. S., Humphreys, K. L., & Moore, A. N. (2011). Memory capacity, selective control, and value-directed remembering in children with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 25, 15-24. doi:10.1037/a0020298
12. Dimaggio, G., Lysaker, P., Carcione, A., Nicolò, G., & Semerari, A. (2008). Know yourself and you shall know the other... to a certain extent: Multiple paths of influence of self-reflection on mindreading. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 778-789. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2008.02.005
13. Dunlosky, J., & Herzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker (Ed.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect people's self-paced study and yield "labor-and-gain" effects. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37-56. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00051-6
15. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
16. Haddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, importance, and intensity: The role of subjective experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 771-782. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007001
17. Hansen, J., Dechêne, A., & Wänke, M. (2008). Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 687-691. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.005
18. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1037/10628-000
19. Jacoby, L. L., Allan, L. G., Collins, J. C., & Larwill, L. K. (1988). Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 240-247. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.240
20. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306-340. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306
21. Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115-125. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.2.115
22. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23. Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1-24. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
24. Kelley, C. M., & Rhodes, M. G. (2002). Making sense and nonsense of experience: Attributions in memory and judgment. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 41, pp. 293-320). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
26. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility account of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.609
27. Koriat, A. (1995). Dissociating knowing and the feeling of knowing:Further evidence for the accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 311-333. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.3.311
28. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
29. Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 149-171. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0433
30. Koriat, A. (2008). Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 416-428. doi:10.3758/MC.36.2.416
31. Koriat, A. (in press). Knowing by doing: When metacognitive monitoring follows metacognitive control. In S. D. Lindsay, A. Yonelinas, C. M. Kelley, & H. L. Roediger (Eds.), Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory: Essays in honour of Larry L. Jacoby. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
32. Koriat, A., & Ackerman, R. (2010). Metacognition and mindreading:Judgments of learning for self and other during self-paced study. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 251-264. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.010
33. Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2014). The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 386-403.
34. Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). The memorizing effort heuristic in judgments of learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 265-279. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.10.005
35. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (1999). Processes underlying metacognitive judgments: Information-based and experience-based monitoring of one's own knowledge. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 483-502). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and the accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 34-53. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.34
37. Koriat, A., & Ma'ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 478-492. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.001
38. Koriat, A., Ma'ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36-69. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
39. Koriat, A., & Nussinson, R. (2009). Attributing study effort to data-driven and goal-driven effects: Implications for metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1338-1343. doi:10.1037/a0016374
40. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & Van Zandt, B. J. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 646-648. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.646
41. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 851-861. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.851
42. Metcalfe, J., & Terrace, H. (Eds.). (2013). Agency and joint attention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199988341.001.0001
43. Mueller, M. L., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 378-384. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6
44. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214-255. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.86 .3.214
45. Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 347-356. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.3.347
46. Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 139-156. doi:10.1002/acp.1178
47. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., Murray, T., & Bromme, R. (2012). Is adaptation to task complexity really beneficial for performance? Learning and Instruction, 22, 281-289. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.005
48. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Proust, J. (2013). The philosophy of metacognition: Mental agency and self-awareness. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602162.001.0001
50. Reber, R., & Unkelbach, C. (2010). The epistemic status of processing fluency as source for judgments of truth. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 563-581. doi:10.1007/s13164-010-0039-7
51. Reber, R., & Zupanek, N. (2002). Effects of processing fluency on estimates of probability and frequency. In P. Sedlmeier & T. Betsch (Eds.), Frequency processing and cognition (pp. 175-188). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508632.003.0011
52. Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 90-138. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(87)90005-3
53. Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 416-425. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.416
54. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1, Whole No. 609). doi:10.1037/h0092976
55. Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489-493. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.489
56. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647
57. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experience in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332-348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
58. Schwarz, N. (in press). Metacognition. In E. Borgida & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Attitudes and social cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
59. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195
60. Soderstrom, N. C., & McCabe, D. P. (2011). The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control:Evidence for agenda-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1236-1242. doi:10.1037/a0023548
61. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204-221. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204
62. Tamir, M., Robinson, M. D., Clore, G. L., Martin, L. L., & Whitaker, D. (2004). Are we puppets on a string? The contextual meaning of unconscious expressive cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 237-249. doi:10.1177/0146167203259934
63. Topolinski, S., Likowski, K. U., Weyers, P., & Strack, F. (2009). The face of fluency: Semantic coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 260-271. doi:10.1080/02699930801994112
64. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
65. Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2011). Judgments of learning reflect encoding fluency: Conclusive evidence for the ease-of-processing hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1264-1269. doi:10.1037/a0023719
66. Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2013). Separation of encoding fluency and item difficulty effects on judgements of learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2060-2072. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.777751
67. Unkelbach, C. (2006). The learned interpretation of cognitive fluency. Psychological Science, 17, 339-345. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01708.x
68. Unkelbach, C., & Greifeneder, R. (2013). A general model of fluency effects in judgment and decision making In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking (pp. 11-32). New York, NY:Psychology Press.
69. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
70. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573. doi:10.1037/0033-295X .92.4.548
71. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235-1253. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235
72. Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 716-732. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2