Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance

Abstract

How aging affects the utilization of monitoring in the allocation of study time was investigated by having adults learn paired associates during multiple study-test trials. During each trial, a subject paced the presentation of individual items and later judged the likelihood of recalling each item on the upcoming test; after all items had been studied and judged, recall occurred. For both age groups in Study 1, (1) people's judgments were highly accurate at predicting recall and (2) intraindividual correlations between judgments (or recall) on one trial, and study times on the next trial were negative, which suggests that subjects utilized monitoring to allocate study time. However, the magnitude of these correlations was less for older than for younger adults. Study 2 revealed that these differences were not due to age differences in forgetting. Results from both studies suggest that older adults do not utilize on-line monitoring to allocate study to the same degree as younger adults do, and that these differences in allocation contribute to age deficits in recall.

The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior.

“…This pattern replicates previously reported results (e.g., Dunlosky & Connor, 1997;Mazzoni et al, 1990;Nelson & Leonesio, 1988;Zacks, 1969) and is consistent with the view of study time as a strategic tool that is used to regulate memory performance. 4 Figure 1 (top panel) presents mean recall for easy and difficult items for the self-paced and fixed-rate conditions.…”

Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test

“…Alternatively, immediate JOLs, which do not involve a diagnostic retrieval attempt, do have reason to rely on MPT. In support of the MPT heuristic, have noted that when judgments are delayed, the UWP effect is either reversed (Dunlosky & Connor, 1997;Koriat & Ma'ayan, 2005, Koriat, Ma'ayan, Sheffer & Bjork, 2006, absent Meeter & Nelson, 2003), or extremely truncated (Serra & Dunlosky, 2005). Furthermore, showed that past test performance predicted immediate JOLs, but not delayed JOLs.…”

The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension

“…The subsequent research examining study-time allocation converges on the conclu-sion that people tend to allocate their study time to items they judge to be difficult (Cull & Zechmeister, 1994;Dunlosky & Connor, 1997;Dunlosky & Hertzog, 1997;Kellas & Butterfield, 1971;Le Ny, Denhiere, & Le Taillanter, 1972;Mazzoni & Cornoldi, 1993;Mazzoni, Cornoldi, & Marchitelli, 1990;Mazzoni, Cornoldi, Tomat, & Vecchi, 1997;Nelson, Dunlosky, Graf, & Narens, 1994;Nelson & Leonesio, 1988;Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999). The present experiment investigated whether participants would allocate more study time to items judged to be more difficult in both congruent and incongruent task-test processing conditions.…”