The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect.

Abstract

According to the Memory for Past Test (MPT) heuristic, judgments of learning (JOLs) may be based, in part, on memory for the correctness of answers on a previous test. The authors explored MPT as the source of the underconfidence with practice effect (UWP; A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, & H. Ma'ayan, 2002), whereby Trial 1 overconfidence switches to underconfidence by Trial 2. Immediate and delayed JOLs were contrasted because only immediate JOLs demonstrate UWP. Consistent with MPT for immediate JOLs, Trial 1 test performance better predicted Trial 2 JOLs than did Trial 2 test performance. Delayed JOLs showed the reverse. Furthermore, items forgotten on Trial 1 but remembered on Trial 2 contributed disproportionately to UWP, but only with immediate JOLs.

The Influence of Feedback on Predictions of Future Memory Performance

“…Finn and Metcalfe (2007;2008) have suggested that participants may rely on Memory for Past Test (MPT) when predicting future memory performance if they had already been tested on the same material. That is, when judging the future memorability of information, people base their judgments on whether that information was recalled during a previous test.…”

“…The reliance on MPT suggests that participants generally do not take new learning into account when predicting future memory performance, leading to a stability bias in memory (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007;2008;Kornell & Bjork, 2009). That is, although participants may understand that more study opportunities will be helpful for memory, the MPT cue may overshadow these beliefs and guide item-by-item predictions.…”

“…Specifically, I anticipated that participants would be unable to predict which errors on an initial test would be corrected on a later test, replicating prior work showing discrepancies between participants' theories of memory and their actual item-by-item predictions (Koriat et al, 2004;Kornell & Bjork, 2009). It is likely that item-by-item judgments will be heavily influenced by the MPT heuristic (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007;2008). That is, participants may give higher JOLs to items they answer correctly and lower JOLs to items that are either incorrect or they could not answer.…”

“…One possible explanation is participants' judgments reflected the memory for past test heuristic (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007;2008 Table 4). Performance on test 1 was closely associated with subsequent JOLs regardless of whether feedback was provided.…”

“…Theory-based JOLs are often based upon people's understanding of how their memory works, whereas experience-based JOLs are influenced by current processing of items (e.g., accuracy of a response on a test, how fluent information appears, etc.). As mentioned previously, when participants have multiple study-test cycles, they often base their judgments on their most recent experience with the item (whether or not they answered it correctly on the previous test, Finn & Metcalfe, 2007;2008), failing to take into account learning that will occur due to an additional study opportunity. One's current memory state is a salient cue (Koriat et al, 2004;Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991) and thus increases the likelihood that participants JOLs will be influenced by the current experience (experience-based JOLs).…”