The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting

Abstract

When people judge their learning of items across study-test trials, their accuracy in discriminating between learned and unlearned items improves on the second trial. We examined the source of this improvement by estimating the contribution of three factors-memory for past test performance (MPT), new learning, and forgetting-to accuracy on trial 2. In Experiment 1, during an initial trial, participants studied paired associates, made a judgment of learning (JOL) for each one, and were tested. During the second trial, we manipulated two variables: when the JOL was made (either immediately before or after studying an item) and whether participants were told the outcome of the initial recall attempt on trial 1. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was used with a 1-week retention interval between study and test on trial 2. In both experiments, JOL resolution was higher on trial 2 than on trial 1. Finegrained analyses of JOL magnitude and decomposition of resolution supported several conclusions. First, MPT contributed the most to boosts in JOL magnitude and improvements in resolution across trials. Second, JOLs and subsequent resolution were sensitive to new learning and forgetting, but only when participants' judgments were made after study. Thus, JOLs appear to integrate information from multiple factors, and these factors jointly contribute to JOL resolution.

The contributions of anchoring and past-test performance to the underconfidence-with-practice effect

“…In addition, past-test correlations exceeded the Phase 2 relative-accuracy correlations. These results concur with past results and conclusions (i.e., Ariel & Dunlosky, 2011;Finn & Metcalfe, 2007, 2008cf. King, Zechmeister, & Shaughnessy, 1980), and they further suggest that past-test information is a major contributor to increases in relative accuracy across phases.…”

“…Although items that participants had recalled on Phase 1 received further adjustment from this anchor on Phase 2, the adjustment was insufficient to produce accuracy, and these items exhibited considerable underconfidence. In addition, the Experiment 1 results also demonstrated that past-test information is likely responsible for increases in the relative accuracy of JOLs across study-test phases (see also Ariel & Dunlosky, 2011;Finn & Metcalfe, 2007, 2008.…”

“…On the basis of the present results, past-test information might help participants overcome their stability bias and better factor new learning and forgetting into their JOLs (cf. Ariel & Dunlosky, 2011). In addition, insufficient adjustment from a low anchor better explains why Metcalfe (2007, 2008) obtained underconfidence on Phase 2 for items that had been correctly recalled on Phase 1: If the underconfidence of the JOLs for these items stemmed from "downward variance," our Experiment 2 groups would have demonstrated equivalent underconfidence for these items (given equal variance across groups).…”

The influence of feedback on predictions of future memory performance

“…Items recalled during the trial 1 test were given a high JOL during Trial 2 and items that were not recalled were given a low JOL during Trial 2. Accordingly, Metcalfe (2007, 2008) suggested that participants rely on Memory for Past Test (MPT), judging future memorability based on whether information was recalled during a previous test (see also Serra & Ariel, 2014; for other influences, see Ariel & Dunlosky 2011;Tauber & Rhodes, 2012).…”

The Influence of Feedback on Predictions of Future Memory Performance

“…Castel suggested that by soliciting pre-JOLs, participants were able to focus on extrinsic factors that are important for actual memory performance (e.g., serial position of an item). When these extrinsic factors are made salient, participants are able to incorporate relevant information into their memory predictions (see also Ariel & Dunlosky, 2011).…”