Literature DB >> 22524495

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs).

Sarah K Tauber1, Matthew G Rhodes.   

Abstract

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information-such as memory failure-to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22524495     DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.656665

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  9 in total

1.  Test Framing Generates a Stability Bias for Predictions of Learning by Causing People to Discount their Learning Beliefs.

Authors:  Robert Ariel; Jarrod C Hines; Christopher Hertzog
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

2.  The concreteness effect on judgments of learning: Evaluating the contributions of fluency and beliefs.

Authors:  Amber E Witherby; Sarah K Tauber
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-05

3.  Do metacognitive judgments alter memory performance beyond the benefits of retrieval practice? A comment on and replication attempt of Dougherty, Scheck, Nelson, and Narens (2005).

Authors:  Michael R Dougherty; Alison M Robey; Daniel Buttaccio
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-05

4.  Can very small font size enhance memory?

Authors:  Vered Halamish
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-08

5.  Making judgments of learning enhances memory by inducing item-specific processing.

Authors:  Olesya Senkova; Hajime Otani
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01-04

6.  The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance: Positive, negative, or both?

Authors:  Jessica L Janes; Michelle L Rivers; John Dunlosky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

7.  Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning.

Authors:  Michael L Mueller; Sarah K Tauber; John Dunlosky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-04

8.  Metamemory that matters: judgments of importance can engage responsible remembering.

Authors:  Dillon H Murphy; Alan D Castel
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2021-03-17

Review 9.  Reactivity to Measures of Metacognition.

Authors:  Kit S Double; Damian P Birney
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-12-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.