Reactivity from judgments of learning is not only due to memory forecasting: evidence from associative memory and frequency judgments

Abstract

Research has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) often produce a reactive effect on the learning of cue-target pairs in which target recall differs between participants who provide item-based JOLs at study versus those who do not. Positive reactivity, or the memory improvement found when JOLs are provided, is typically observed on related pairs, while no reactivity is commonly found on unrelated pairs. In four experiments, we examined JOL reactivity effects by comparing JOL and no-JOL groups to other groups who engaged in relational-type encoding/judgment tasks. Experiment 1 replicated positive JOL reactivity effects with related pairs with an extension to symmetrically related pairs. Next, Experiment 2 found that providing judgments of associative memory-a task that does not involve memory predictions-yielded equivalent reactivity patterns as JOLs. Experiment 3 replicated this reactivity pattern using a frequency of co-occurrence judgment task. Finally, In Experiment 4, a similar positive reactivity pattern was found using a relational encoding task when compared to a standard JOL. Collectively, our results suggest that previous JOL reactivity patterns are not solely due to memory forecasting processes via JOLs and likely reflect relational encoding that is strategically applied towards related, but not unrelated pairs. Keywords Metamemory • Judgments of learning • Reactivity • Relational encoding • Associative direction • Cued-recall An individual's ability to accurately monitor the progress of their own learning is critical for successful retention. Effective monitoring allows individuals to adjust their study strategies to maximize memory performance (Nelson & Narens, 1990) and provides insights on how best to allocate memorial resources to optimize learning (Soderstrom et al., 2015; see also Bjork, 1999, for a review). Empirically, information about learning processes can R code used for data screening and analyses as well as all applicable stimuli and data files have been made available on our OSF page (https:// osf. io/ 8yvn3/).

Does Interactive Imagery Influence the Reactive Effect of Judgments of Learning on Memory?

“…Similarly, other researchers have shown that the reactivity effects extend to other judgments such as judgments of forgetting (i.e., how likely are you to forget this item? ; Murphy et al 2023) and judgments of relatedness (Maxwell and Huff 2022). In a study looking at both the encoding and retrieval conditions, Chang and Brainerd (2023) found that list-level JOLs (i.e., how many items do you think you will remember from the list you just studied) enhanced free-recall, but not cued-recall, whereas item-level JOLs (as in the present experiment) enhanced cued-recall, but not free recall.…”

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

“…In the case of related pairs, participants often use the relatedness of two words in a pair to inform their judgments (e.g., making higher judgments for related than unrelated word pairs, e.g., Koriat 1997 ). Compared to no-JOL conditions, making JOLs increases the processing of cue-target associations, which can improve performance on tests of cued recall (e.g., Halamish and Undorf 2022 ; Maxwell and Huff 2022a , 2022b ; Myers et al 2020 ; Rivers et al 2021 , 2023 ; Soderstrom et al 2015 ). Conditional analyses based on our post-experiment questionnaire, in which participants in the JOL groups were asked how they made their judgments, provide some indirect support for this hypothesis.…”

“…Finally, our outcomes (and perhaps some of our conclusions) are limited to the specific participants, materials, encoding conditions, and retrieval conditions investigated in the current experiments. Thus, future research should continue to investigate JOL reactivity with different materials (e.g., word pairs with varying degrees of relatedness, Chang and Brainerd 2023 ; Maxwell and Huff 2022a ), method variations (e.g., self-paced versus experimenter-paced judgments, Janes et al 2018 ), different types of judgments (e.g., relatedness judgments, Halamish and Undorf 2022 ; Maxwell and Huff 2022b ), different test types (e.g., free recall or recognition; Myers et al 2020 ), and other populations (e.g., older adults, Tauber and Witherby 2019 ) for a more complete understanding of JOL reactivity across a multitude of contexts.…”

“…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.…”

“…In the current experiments, we investigated whether attentional reorienting during encoding contributes to positive reactivity for related word pairs. We used related word pairs as stimuli because they consistently show a positive reactivity effect, at least with younger adult participants (e.g., Halamish and Undorf 2022 ; Janes et al 2018 ; Maxwell and Huff 2022a , 2022b ; Myers et al 2020 ; Rivers et al 2021 ; Soderstrom et al 2015 ; Tauber and Witherby 2019 ; Witherby and Tauber 2017 ; but see DeYoung and Serra 2021 ; Mitchum et al 2016 ). Participants (an online sample in Experiment 1 and undergraduates in Experiment 2) learned these related word pairs and either made or did not make JOLs halfway through encoding each pair.…”