Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control

Finn, Bridgid

doi:10.3758/mc.36.4.813

Cited by 98 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Would an estimate made in response to this negatively framed question be a direct transformation of that made in response to the standard question? Finn's (2008) results suggest that a negatively framed question could produce lower postdictions than the standard, positively framed question by drawing attention to participants' errors rather than their correct responses. In Experiment 1, we manipulated whether participants were asked to estimate the number of questions they had gotten correct or the number they had gotten wrong on an immediately preceding test to examine the effect of framing on postdictions and to determine whether participants engage in different strategies when making these two judgments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it

Weinstein

Roediger

2010

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the effect of three variables (test list structure, report option, and framing) on retrospective bias in global evaluations of test performance (postdictions). Participants answered general knowledge questions and estimated correctness of their performance after each block. The ordering of the questions within a block affected bias: Participants believed they had answered more questions correctly when questions were sorted from the easiest to the hardest than when the same questions were randomized or sorted from the hardest to the easiest. This bias was obtained on global postdictions but was not apparent on item-by-item ratings, pointing to a memory-based phenomenon. In addition, forcing participants to produce a response to every question increased performance without affecting evaluations. Finally, framing the evaluation question in terms of the number of questions answered incorrectly (rather than the number correctly answered) did not affect how positively participants evaluated their performance, but did render postdictions less accurate. Our results provide evidence that students' evaluations of performance after a test are prone to retrospective memory biases.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Finn (2008) showed a framing effect on judgments of learning (JOLs)-that is, predictions of whether particular items would be remembered at test. Participants tend to be overconfident when making these judgments (e.g., Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it

Weinstein

Roediger

2010

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eighteen participants allocated more time to restudying incorrectly generated pairs and two showed the reverse pattern. These results reveal that participants' assessments of learning, instead of their actual learning status, guided their restudy time allocation (Finn, 2008;Metcalfe & Finn, 2008).…”

Section: Restudy Time Allocationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning.

Yang

Potts

Shanks

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generating errors followed by corrective feedback enhances retention more effectively than does reading—the benefit of errorful generation—but people tend to be unaware of this benefit. The current research explored this metacognitive unawareness, its effect on self-regulated learning, and how to alleviate or reverse it. People’s beliefs about the relative learning efficacy of generating errors followed by corrective feedback compared to reading, and the effects of generation fluency, are also explored. In Experiments 1 and 2, lower judgments of learning (JOLs) were consistently given to incorrectly generated word pairs than to studied (read) pairs and led participants to distribute more study resources to incorrectly generated pairs, even though superior recall of these pairs was exhibited in the final test. In Experiment 3, a survey revealed that people believe that generating errors followed by corrective feedback is inferior to reading. Experiment 4 was designed to alter participants’ metacognition by informing them of the errorful generation benefit prior to study. Although metacognitive misalignment was partly countered, participants still tended to be unaware of this benefit when making item-by-item JOLs. In Experiment 5, in a delayed JOL condition, higher JOLs were given to incorrectly generated pairs and read pairs were more likely to be selected for restudy. The current research reveals that people tend to underestimate the learning efficiency of generating errors followed by corrective feedback relative to reading when making immediate item-by-item JOLs. Informing people of the errorful generation benefit prior to study and asking them to make delayed JOLs are effective ways to alleviate this metacognitive miscalibration.

show abstract

“…7). Finn (2008) also illustrated that framing predictions in terms of forgetting led to more information being selected for restudy than when predictions were framed in terms of remembering. Thus, it appears that thinking about forgetting allows participants to access their theory-based inferences and give more accurate predictions, while taking into account general principles of forgetting.…”

Section: Forgetting Judgments Of Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are we aware of our ability to forget? Metacognitive predictions of directed forgetting

Friedman

Castel

2011

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often important to accurately predict not only what information we will later remember, but also what information we are likely to forget. The present research examined these abilities in the context of itemmethod directed forgetting, to determine whether people are aware of their strategic control of remembering and forgetting, as well as what cues are used when making metacognitive judgments. Participants studied words, each of which was followed by a cue to remember (R) or forget (F) the word for an upcoming test, and also made predictions of how likely they would be to later recall each word. When asked to recall all of the words, regardless of cue, both recall and predicted recall were fairly sensitive to the R or F instructions, despite some overconfidence. A similar and stronger pattern was found when words were assigned positive or negative point values as cues to remember or forget. These findings suggest that item-based cues to remember or forget information can be successfully utilized when making metacognitive judgments, and that people are fairly aware of the control they have over both remembering and forgetting information.

show abstract

Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control

Cited by 98 publications

References 70 publications

Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it

Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it

Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning.

Are we aware of our ability to forget? Metacognitive predictions of directed forgetting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About