Changed-goal or cue-strengthening? Examining the reactivity of judgments of learning with the dual-retrieval model

Chang, Meng‐Chou; Brainerd, Charles J.

doi:10.1007/s11409-022-09321-y

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The third set of results is concerned with the specific retrieval processes that GS and BAS affect, which involves analyzing recall data with the dual-retrieval model (Chang & Brainerd, 2023; Gomes et al, 2014). Table 2 summarizes the retrieval processes that this model measures for multitrial designs such as Experiment 1: (a) a verbatim recollection process (parameters D and F ), (b) a semantic reconstruction process (parameter R ), and (c) a familiarity judgment process (parameters J 1 , J 2 , and J 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From association to gist: Some critical tests.

Brainerd,

Chang,

Bialer

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report the first evidence that the gist mechanism of fuzzy-trace theory and the associative mechanism of activation monitoring theory operate in parallel, in the recall version of the Deese/Roediger/McDermott illusion. In three experiments, we implemented a new methodology that allows their respective empirical indexes, gist strength (GS) and backward associative strength (BAS), to each be manipulated while the other is held constant. In Experiment 1, increasing GS increased false recall of missing words, but increasing BAS did not. In Experiments 2 and 3, however, increasing GS and increasing BAS both increased recall of missing words, and those effects were independent and additive. In all three experiments, GS and BAS affected true recall of list words in qualitatively different ways: (a) Increasing GS always improved true recall, regardless of whether BAS was high or low, but (b) increasing BAS impaired true recall when GS was high and improved true recall when GS was low. To pinpoint the retrieval loci of the two variables' effects, we analyzed the data of all experiments with the dual-retrieval model. Those analyses showed that the variables' respective effects were due to different retrieval processes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From association to gist: Some critical tests.

Brainerd,

Chang,

Bialer

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the item-specific processing hypothesis cannot accommodate the current data, it did provide a good account of JOL reactivity data in other studies. For example, in Experiments 1 and 2 of Chang and Brainerd (2023), it was observed that positive JOL reactivity for related word pairs was tied to dual-retrieval model parameters that index item-specific recollection. Moreover, according to Zhao et al (2022Zhao et al ( , 2023, item-level JOLs disrupt order reconstruction (a measure of relational processing) with unrelated word lists and rhyming pairs whose target words are categorical exemplars.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where D is the probability that the verbatim trace of an item's presentation can be directly accessed on a recall test, F is the probability that the direct access works in the first recall test but fails in the second or third recall test, R is the probability that an item can be reconstructed on a recall test when the verbatim trace of the item's presentation cannot be accessed, and J 1 , J 2 , and J 3 are the probabilities that a reconstructed item is judged to be familiar enough to output on test 1, test 2, and test 3, respectively. It should be noted that the current version of the dual-retrieval model is slightly different from the prior version used in Chang and Brainerd (2023). The prior version applied to associative recall of word pairs, whereas the current model was developed specifically for free recall tests for lists of single words.…”

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, as Senkova and Otani (2021) noted, similar performance between the item-JOL conditions and the pleasantness rating and mental imagery conditions does not guarantee that the underlying processes operating in those conditions are the same or even similar. To address this uncertainty, we used the dual-retrieval model of recall (Brainerd et al 2009;Chang and Brainerd 2023) to pinpoint the underlying memory processes that are responsible for JOL reactivity in the present experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Judgments of Learning Reactivity on Item-Specific and Relational Processing

Chang,

Brainerd

2024

J. Intell.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgments of learning (JOLs) reactivity refers to the finding that the mere solicitation of JOLs modifies subsequent memory performance. One theoretical explanation is the item-specific processing hypothesis, which posits that item-level JOLs redound to the benefit of later memory performance because they enhance item-specific processing. The current study was designed to test this account. We factorially manipulated the organization (blocked vs. randomized) of categorized lists and JOL condition (item-JOLs, list-JOLs, no-JOLs) between participants, and fit the dual-retrieval model to free recall data to pinpoint the underlying memory processes that were affected by JOL solicitation. Our results showed that item-level JOLs produced positive reactivity for randomized but not for blocked categorized lists. Moreover, we found that the positive JOL reactivity for randomized categorized lists was tied to a familiarity judgment process that is associated with gist processing, rather than to item-specific recollective processes. Thus, our results pose a challenge to the item-specific processing explanation of JOL reactivity. We argue that JOL reactivity is not restricted to item-specific processing; instead, whether JOLs predominantly engage participants with item-specific or relational processing depends on the interaction between learning stimuli and JOLs.

show abstract

“…In the current investigation, we focus on the reactive effect of making immediate JOLs on memory performance. Such JOL reactivity has been investigated for a variety of materials, including single words (e.g., Begg et al 1989 ; Halamish 2018 ; Li et al 2022 ; Senkova and Otani 2021 ; Tauber and Rhodes 2012 ; Tekin and Roediger 2020 ; Yang et al 2015 ; Zechmeister and Shaughnessy 1980 ; Zhao et al 2022 ), word pairs (e.g., Arbuckle and Cuddy 1969 ; Chang and Brainerd 2023 ; DeYoung and Serra 2021 ; Dougherty et al 2005 , 2018 ; Halamish and Undorf 2022 ; Janes et al 2018 ; Kelemen and Weaver 1997 ; Maxwell and Huff 2022a , 2022b ; Mitchum et al 2016 ; Myers et al 2020 ; Rivers et al 2021 , 2023 ; Soderstrom et al 2015 ; Tauber and Witherby 2019 ; Witherby and Tauber 2017 ; Zhao et al 2023 ), pictures (e.g., Shi et al 2022 ; Sommer et al 1995 ), general knowledge facts (e.g., Schäfer and Undorf 2023 ), and educational texts (e.g., Ariel et al 2021 ; Dobson et al 2019 ; Ha and Lee 2023 ). This research has typically revealed a memory benefit (i.e., positive reactivity) for cued recall of pairs with a semantic relationship (e.g., coat – jacket ), positive reactivity for recognition of single words or pictures, no recall benefit for cued recall of unrelated word pairs (e.g., dog – spoon ), and mixed results for educational material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy–cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible “reorienting” effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.

show abstract

Changed-goal or cue-strengthening? Examining the reactivity of judgments of learning with the dual-retrieval model

Cited by 11 publications

References 53 publications

From association to gist: Some critical tests.

From association to gist: Some critical tests.

Judgments of Learning Reactivity on Item-Specific and Relational Processing

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About