Literature DB >> 35968027

Remedying the Metamemory Expectancy Illusion in Source Monitoring: Are there Effects on Restudy Choices and Source Memory?

Marie Luisa Schaper1, Ute J Bayen1, Carolin V Hey1.   

Abstract

Metamemory monitoring, study behavior, and memory are presumably causally connected. When people misjudge their memory, their study behavior should be biased accordingly. Remedying metamemory illusions should debias study behavior and improve memory. One metamemory illusion concerns source memory, a critical aspect of episodic memory. People predict better source memory for items that originated from an expected source (e.g., toothbrush in a bathroom) rather than an unexpected source (e.g., shampoo in a kitchen), whereas actual source memory shows the opposite: an inconsistency effect. This expectancy illusion biases restudy choices: Participants restudy more unexpected than expected source-item pairs. The authors tested the causal relationships between metamemory and source memory with a delay and a source-retrieval attempt between study and metamemory judgment to remedy the expectancy illusion and debias restudy choices. Debiased restudy choices should enhance source memory for expected items, thereby reducing the inconsistency effect. Two groups studied expected and unexpected source-item pairs. They made metamemory judgments and restudy choices immediately at study or after delay, restudied the selected pairs, and completed a source-monitoring test. After immediate judgments, participants predicted better source memory for expected pairs and selected more unexpected pairs for restudy. After delayed judgments, participants predicted a null effect of expectancy on source memory and selected equal numbers of expected and unexpected pairs. Thus, the expectancy illusion was partially remedied and restudy choices were debiased. Nevertheless, source memory was only weakly affected. The results challenge the presumed causal relationships between metamemory monitoring, study behavior, and source memory.
© The Author(s) 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delayed JOS; Metamemory Control; Metamemory Monitoring; Schemas; Source Monitoring

Year:  2022        PMID: 35968027      PMCID: PMC9364291          DOI: 10.1007/s11409-022-09312-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Metacogn Learn        ISSN: 1556-1623


  53 in total

1.  Delaying judgments of learning affects memory, not metamemory.

Authors:  Daniel R Kimball; Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-09

2.  When is schematic knowledge used in source monitoring?

Authors:  Julia Spaniol; Ute J Bayen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect.

Authors:  J Dunlosky; T O Nelson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-07

4.  On the flexibility of social source memory: a test of the emotional incongruity hypothesis.

Authors:  Raoul Bell; Axel Buchner; Meike Kroneisen; Trang Giang
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Gender and orientation stereotypes bias source-monitoring attributions.

Authors:  Richard L Marsh; Gabriel I Cook; Jason L Hicks
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2006-02

6.  Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe; Bridgid Finn
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-02

7.  Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist.

Authors:  A Friedman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1979-09

8.  Schema bias in source monitoring varies with encoding conditions: support for a probability-matching account.

Authors:  Beatrice G Kuhlmann; Bianca Vaterrodt; Ute J Bayen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Metacognitive monitoring during criterion learning: when and why are judgments accurate?

Authors:  Mary A Pyc; Katherine A Rawson; Andrew J Aschenbrenner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-08

10.  Bald and Bad?

Authors:  Dirk Kranz; Lena Nadarevic; Edgar Erdfelder
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2019-10-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.