Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect

Hanczakowski, Maciej; Zawadzka, Katarzyna; Pasek, Tomasz; Higham, Philip A.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.003

Cited by 43 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also demonstrated that the UWP pattern for previously recalled items can be found irrespective of the number of past recall successes. The finding that the UWP pattern can be found for once-recalled items has been previously reported in experiments consisting of two study-test cycles (e.g., Koriat et al, 2002) as well as on the second of three cycles in Experiments 1 and 4 of Hanczakowski et al (2013 The difference between these two approaches to JOLs can be described using the pattern from Experiment 1. Recall for previously recalled items on cycle 3 is uniformly high and very close to ceiling.…”

supporting

confidence: 66%

“…Under the traditional likelihood interpretation, such a pattern demonstrates that participants do not believe that nearly all of previously once recalled items will be retrieved again on cycle 3. Under the confidence interpretation offered by Hanczakowski et al (2013), such a pattern is equally consistent with participants believing that nearly all previously recalled items will be retrieved again on cycle 3. What drives 0-100% JOLs assigned to once-recalled items down under this interpretation is an explicit demand posed by the scale JOL tasknamely, to differentiate between various items at study.…”

supporting

confidence: 60%

“…However, Koriat et al (2002), Finn and Metcalfe (2007), and Hanczakowski et al (2013) reported the presence of the UWP pattern for previously recalled items as well. Finn and Metcalfe argued that these items may contribute to the UWP effect because of variability present in JOLs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Even though participants may be convinced that items that were already recalled a short while ago will be recalled again on an immediate test, such as those commonly used for investigating UWP, they nevertheless use the scale provided by the experimenter to express their varying level of confidence in future recall. Hanczakowski et al (2013) proposed that one way to differentiate between likelihood and confidence interpretations is to use binary decisions, such as decisions to bet (or refrain from betting) that an item will be recalled, to assess participants' perceived likelihood of future recall. 5 If participants truly underestimate future recall of a subset of items, then the proportion of bets for these items should be lower than their mean recall performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability

Zawadzka

Higham

2015

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 66%

supporting

confidence: 60%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability

Zawadzka

Higham

2015

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If that were the case, then the fact that external cues do not modify the rate of 'don't know' responding would not be surprising. In Experiment 2 we amended this problem by investigating another form of metamemory decisions: decisions whether to bet or refrain from betting on the accuracy of a candidate response (see Hanczakowski, Zawadzka, Pasek, & Higham, 2013;McGillivray & Castel, 2011;Zawadzka & Higham, 2015, for other examples of using betting decisions to investigate metamemory processes). The betting procedure allows for investigating accuracy of both 'volunteered' responses (as in Experiment 1) -that is responses which participants decide to bet on -and 'withheld' responses participants decide not to bet on.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance.

Zawadzka

Krogulska

Button

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When presented with responses of another person, people incorporate these responses into memory reports: a finding termed memory conformity. Research on memory conformity in recognition reveals that people rely on external social cues to guide their memory responses when their own ability to respond is at chance. In this way, conforming to a reliable source boosts recognition performance but conforming to a random source does not impair it. In the present study we assessed whether people would conform indiscriminately to reliable and unreliable (random) sources when they are given the opportunity to exercise metamemory control over their responding by withholding answers in a recognition test. In Experiments 1 and 2, we found the pattern of memory conformity to reliable and unreliable sources in two variants of a free-report recognition test, yet at the same time the provision of external cues did not affect the rate of response withholding. In Experiment 3, we provided participants with initial feedback on their recognition decisions, facilitating the discrimination between the reliable and unreliable source. This led to the reduction of memory conformity to the unreliable source, and at the same time modulated metamemory decisions concerning response withholding: participants displayed metamemory conformity to the reliable source, volunteering more responses in their memory report, and metamemory resistance to the random source, withholding more responses from the memory report. Together, the results show how metamemory decisions dissociate various types of memory conformity and that memory and metamemory decisions can be independent of each other. Keywords: Memory conformity, Metamemory, Recognition MEMORY, METAMEMORY, AND SOCIAL CUES 3Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance Remembering has long been considered exclusively as a process of encoding, storing and retrieving information from one's memory. This perspective neglects, however, a variety of factors that affect remembering yet do not concern the core memory processes. Two instances of such extra-memorial factors in remembering gained much attention in recent years. First, the social perspective underscores the fact that remembering often does not unfold in social isolation, but rather in the presence and with active participation of other people (Blank, 2009;Hirst & Echterhoff, 2012;Hirst & Rajaram, 2014; Rajaram & PereiraPasarin, 2010). A number of important studies have shown how collaborating with other people affects remembering, often in negative ways, reducing output from memory (Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997) or introducing errors (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003;Meade & Roediger, 2002). Second, the metamemory perspective underscores the fact that the process of remembering does not stop when memory is retrieved but continues in the form of metamemory decisions which determine how information retrieved from memory will be used to build a memory report -that is, the overt answer provided to a memory ...

show abstract

Centrality ratings, forensic relevance, and production frequency: Which one best identifies central and peripheral items?

Luna

Albuquerque

2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryProduction frequency has often been used to identify central and peripheral information, under the assumption that high frequency implies that the item is central. However, no research to date has tested the relationship between centrality and frequency. Participants watched a video of a bank robbery and completed a free recall test, from which frequency for recalled items was computed. Two groups then watched the same video and rated centrality and forensic relevance for each item. Results showed that most, but not all, items with high frequency were rated as central and forensically relevant but that low frequency items were not diagnostic of either item centrality or forensic relevance. Forensic relevance was a better indicator of item centrality than frequency. We concluded that frequency measures should be avoided to determine centrality. Also, if centrality ratings cannot be collected, forensic relevance ratings may be more appropriate for this purpose.

show abstract

Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect

Cited by 43 publications

References 45 publications

Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability

Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability

Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance.

Centrality ratings, forensic relevance, and production frequency: Which one best identifies central and peripheral items?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About