Delaying metamemory judgments corrects the expectancy illusion in source monitoring: The role of fluency and belief.

Schaper, Marie Luisa; Bayen, Ute J.; Hey, Carolin V.

doi:10.1037/xlm0001088

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 128 publications

(429 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1) as participants predicted expectancy effects on both item memory and source memory, whereas neither item memory nor source memory reliably differed between expected and unexpected trials. These results replicate prior research (Mieth et al, 2021; Schaper & Bayen, 2021; Schaper et al, 2019a, 2019b, 2022a). Importantly, the size of the expectancy effect differed between JOLs and JOSs suggesting that both judgments were formed differently.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Participants rendered item-wise JOLs and JOSs. Replicating prior research (Mieth et al, 2021; Schaper et al, 2019a, 2019b), participants predicted expectancy effects on item memory (via JOLs, see Konopka & Benjamin, 2009; Shi et al, 2012) and source memory (via JOSs, see Schaper & Bayen, 2021; Schaper et al, 2022a, 2022b). The expectancy effect was stronger on JOSs than JOLs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Owing to semantic priming, the higher the item-inherent consistency with any one of the activated schemas, the more metamemory judgments of item memory should increase. This may be because items with high item-inherent consistency may be more conceptually fluent (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009; Whittlesea, 1993; or more familiar, e.g., Metcalfe, 1993; Reder, 1987; Schwartz, 1994) and/or may trigger a stronger belief that consistency benefits memory (Schaper et al, 2019a, 2022a), which should enhance JOLs.…”

Section: Item Memory and Source Memory In Schema-based Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such manipulations of expected and unexpected source–item pairs have been implemented in a myriad of studies with a variety of item and source materials. For example, researchers used scenes with expected and unexpected objects (Küppers & Bayen, 2014; Lew & Howe, 2017; Schaper & Bayen, 2021; Schaper et al, 2019a, 2019b, 2022a, 2022b), people with different professions making expected and unexpected statements (Arnold et al, 2013; Bayen & Kuhlmann, 2011; Dodson et al, 2008; Hicks & Cockman, 2003; Konopka & Benjamin, 2009; Kuhlmann et al, 2012; Shi et al, 2012; Spaniol & Bayen, 2002; Wulff & Kuhlmann, 2020), people associated with certain stereotypes showing expected and unexpected behavior (e.g., concerning prosocial behavior: Ehrenberg & Klauer, 2005; Sherman et al, 1998; Sherman & Bessenoff, 1999; gender: Marsh et al, 2006; or partisanship: Mather et al, 1999), and trustworthy and untrustworthy people who expectedly or unexpectedly cheated or cooperated (Bell et al, 2012; Kroneisen & Bell, 2013; Kroneisen et al, 2015; Mieth et al, 2021). These studies show that schema-based expectations affect item memory and source memory differentially.…”

Section: Item Memory and Source Memory In Schema-based Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, people predict that item memory and source memory are similarly affected by schema-based expectations. Across multiple studies, participants predicted that both were better for expected than unexpected trials (Mieth et al, 2021; Schaper et al, 2019a, 2019b; for studies assessing JOLs only, see Konopka & Benjamin, 2009; Shi et al, 2012; for studies assessing JOSs only, see Schaper & Bayen, 2021; Schaper et al, 2022a, 2022b). That is, participants predicted expectancy effects on item memory and source memory.…”

Section: Item Memory and Source Memory In Schema-based Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Metacognitive differentiation of item memory and source memory in schema-based source monitoring.

Schaper¹,

Kuhlmann²,

Bayen³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Item memory and source memory are different aspects of episodic remembering. To investigate metamemory differences between them, the authors assessed systematic differences between predictions of item memory via Judgments of Learning (JOLs) and source memory via Judgments of Source (JOSs). Schema-based expectations affect JOLs and JOSs differently: Judgments are higher for expected source–item pairs (e.g., “nightstand in the bedroom”) than unexpected pairs (e.g., “bed in the bathroom”), but this expectancy effect is stronger on JOSs than JOLs (Schaper et al., 2019b). The current study tested theoretical underpinnings of this difference. Due to semantic priming, JOLs should be influenced by the consistency between an item and any of the schemas activated at study. JOSs, however, should be influenced by the (in)consistency between an item and its actual source. In three experiments, source–item pairs varied in strength of consistency and inconsistency. Participants provided item-wise JOLs and JOSs. Regardless of an items’ actual source, JOLs were higher the more consistent an item was with any of the source schemas, but only if that schema was activated by occurring as a source at study. JOLs were also biased by the actual source: JOLs were lower the more inconsistent an item was with its actual source. By contrast, JOSs were primarily influenced by an item’s (in)consistency with its actual source (positively for consistency, negatively for inconsistency). Thus, participants metacognitively differentiated item memory and source memory.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Item Memory and Source Memory In Schema-based Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Item Memory and Source Memory In Schema-based Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Item Memory and Source Memory In Schema-based Source Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Metacognitive differentiation of item memory and source memory in schema-based source monitoring.

Schaper¹,

Kuhlmann²,

Bayen³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Schaper

Bayen

Hey

2022

Metacognition Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Forward Effect of Delayed Judgments of Learning Is Influenced by Difficulty in Memory and Category Learning

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delayed judgment of learning (JOL) is a widely used metacognitive monitoring strategy that can also enhance learning outcomes. However, the potential benefits of delayed JOL on subsequent learning of new material, known as the forward effect of delayed JOL, and its stability and underlying mechanisms have yet to be fully explored. In this study, we investigated the forward effect of delayed JOL using previously unexamined word pair materials and explored the boundary conditions of this effect by manipulating the difficulty of the materials. We also examined this effect within the context of category learning. Our findings demonstrate that delayed JOL significantly enhanced the retention of new information (Experiment 1A), while the forward effect of the delayed JOL occurred only for material with a certain degree of difficulty rather than for easy material (Experiment 1B). These findings were extended and replicated using category learning (Experiment 2). These results suggest that delayed JOL can be used as a preparation strategy for subsequent learning, particularly when faced with challenging materials. Our study provides novel insights into the potential benefits and limitations of delayed JOL and contributes to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that govern metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies.

show abstract

Delaying metamemory judgments corrects the expectancy illusion in source monitoring: The role of fluency and belief.

Cited by 4 publications

References 128 publications

Metacognitive differentiation of item memory and source memory in schema-based source monitoring.

Metacognitive differentiation of item memory and source memory in schema-based source monitoring.

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

The Forward Effect of Delayed Judgments of Learning Is Influenced by Difficulty in Memory and Category Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About