Do judgments of learning modify older adults’ actual learning?

Tauber, Sarah K.; Witherby, Amber E.

doi:10.1037/pag0000376

Cited by 35 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, research has observed positive reactivity effects on learning of word lists (Double et al, 2018), related word pairs (Soderstrom et al, 2015), and general knowledge facts (Yang, Huang, et al, 2021), whereas no reactivity is found on learning of texts (Ariel et al, 2021), unrelated word pairs (Dougherty et al, 2018; Soderstrom et al, 2015), or mixed lists of related and unrelated word pairs (Double et al, 2018). Even though making JOLs facilitates children's (the current study) and young adults’ learning (Witherby & Tauber, 2017), older adults benefit minimally from making JOLs (Tauber & Witherby, 2019). Myers et al (2020) also observed that reactivity is moderated by test format, being more positive in recognition than in free recall tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Although the reactivity effect has been repeatedly investigated in recent studies, little research has been conducted to explore whether this effect generalizes to different populations. Indeed, most previous studies constrained their participants to college students (e.g., Mitchum et al, 2016; Witherby & Tauber, 2017), but with one exception (Tauber & Witherby, 2019). In five experiments, Tauber and Witherby (2019) had college students and older adults study related word pairs, either making or not making JOLs.…”

Section: Reactivity Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, most previous studies constrained their participants to college students (e.g., Mitchum et al, 2016; Witherby & Tauber, 2017), but with one exception (Tauber & Witherby, 2019). In five experiments, Tauber and Witherby (2019) had college students and older adults study related word pairs, either making or not making JOLs. These five experiments consistently showed that positive reactivity failed to manifest in older adults, despite being robust in college students.…”

Section: Reactivity Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning

Zhao

Shanks

et al. 2021

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Reactivity Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reactivity Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning

Zhao

Shanks

et al. 2021

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another possible account of JOL reactivity is the attentional reorienting account (Rivers et al, 2021; Tauber & Witherby, 2019; Zhao et al, 2021). According to this account, during the 8-s presentation of a pair in the no-JOL group, participants’ attention sometimes wanes, and they start mind wandering.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments.

Halamish¹,

Undorf²

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has observed that monitoring one’s own learning modifies memory for some materials but not for others. Specifically, making judgments of learning (JOLs) while learning word pairs improves subsequent cued-recall memory performance for related word pairs but not for unrelated word pairs. Theories that have attempted to explain this pattern of results assume that people attend to and process cue-target relatedness during learning more when making JOLs than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. The present research directly tested this relatedness-processing assumption with unrelated and related word pairs as well as with hitherto unexamined materials: identical word pairs. In three experiments, participants studied word pairs while either making or not making JOLs. Results revealed that making JOLs improved memory for related word pairs as well as for identical word pairs, but not for unrelated word pairs. Importantly, in two of the experiments, participants were further asked to judge at test whether each cue appeared with an unrelated, related, or identical target before attempting to recall it. Results revealed that making JOLs improved the accuracy of these relatedness judgments independently from its effect on recall, thus providing direct evidence that people process cue-target relatedness when making JOLs more than they spontaneously do when not making JOLs. These findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why judging one’s own learning can modify memory and, more broadly, suggest that instructions to monitor learning can direct people’s attention to information that is not or less processed otherwise.

show abstract

“…To quantify participants' vocabulary performance, we calculated the number of items correct and adjusted for guessing (cf. Tauber & Witherby, 2019). Experiments 1 and 2 received approval from the institutional review board and adhered to APA ethical guidelines for research involving human participants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do older adults maintain corrections in knowledge across a lengthy delay?

Sitzman¹,

Tauber²,

Witherby³

2020

Psychology and Aging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Older adults often correct errors in existing knowledge as effectively as younger adults despite the fact that inaccurate knowledge has the potential to cause interference with memory for a correct response. In the current experiments, we sought to explore whether error corrections are maintained across a delay and identify mechanisms that may support this process. In Experiment 1, younger and older adults answered general knowledge questions, rated confidence in their responses, were shown feedback, and rated their prior knowledge of the question and answer. Half of the participants took a final test after a 6-min delay and half returned 1 week later. Across a 1-week delay, older adults maintained a greater proportion of corrected responses than did younger adults. In Experiment 2, we examined whether participants use their memory for errors on the initial test to mediate retrieval of the correct answer on the final test (i.e., the mediator hypothesis). Participants were more likely to answer questions correctly on a final test when they recalled their initial error, but memory for the initial error was a stronger predictor of final test accuracy for younger adults than for older adults. Additionally, older adults, in comparison with younger adults, corrected a higher proportion of errors when the initial error was forgotten. Overall, inaccurate knowledge did not interfere with older adults' ability to maintain revisions in memory. In addition, we found support for the mediator hypothesis; however, other mechanisms also contribute to older adults' error correction.

show abstract

Do judgments of learning modify older adults’ actual learning?

Cited by 35 publications

References 45 publications

When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning

When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning

Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments.

How do older adults maintain corrections in knowledge across a lengthy delay?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About