Abstract
AbstractWhen making memory predictions (judgments of learning; JOLs), people typically underestimate the recall gain across multiple study–test cycles, termed the underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect. This is usually studied with verbal materials, but little is known about how people repeatedly learn and monitor their own actions and to what extent retrieval practice via interim tests influence the progression of JOLs across cycles. Using action phrases (i.e., squeeze the lemon) as learning material, we demonstrated the UWP effect after both verbal and enactive encoding, although we did not get first-cycle overconfidence. As predicted, participants exhibited underconfidence in Cycles 2 and 3, as an error of calibrations. However, people’s resolution of JOLs (i.e., ability to discriminate recalled from unrecalled items) increased across study–test cycles. Importantly, JOLs for study–test (relative to study–study) items increased faster across cycles suggesting that repeated study–test practice not only produces underconfidence across cycles, but also reduces underconfidence relative to study–study practice. We discuss these findings in terms of current explanations of the underconfidence-with-practice effect.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference100 articles.
1. Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 39, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0002-y
2. Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029199
3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
4. Begg, I., Vinski, E., Frankovich, L., & Holgate, B. (1991). Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading. Memory & Cognition, 19(5), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199571
5. Benjamin, A. S., & Diaz, M. (2008). Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of Memory and Metamemory (pp. 73–94). Psychology Press.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献