Fluency of retrieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): An analytic or nonanalytic basis for JOLs?

Abstract

The fluency of retrieval during a test of memory has been implicated as a cue for judgments of learning (JOLs), but little is known about how fluency affects JOLs. In three experiments, we investigated (1) whether the fluency of generation during study may be a cue for JOLs and (2) whether such fluency effects are mediated by an analytic or nonanalytic inference. To accomplish our goals, we used a learner-observer-judge method. While studying paired associates, learners generated some targets at study. For these items, their JOLs were negatively correlated with the time taken to generate targets. Observers watched learners generate targets and then predicted learners' memory performance. Judges also made JOLs but did not watch the learners generate targets. JOLs from all groups were negatively related to learners' latencies to generate targets, with the magnitude of the relationship equivalent for learners and observers and lower for judges. These and other findings are consistent with the conclusions that the fluency of generation at study is a cue for JOLs and that such fluency effects are partly mediated by an analytic inference about how fluency is related to memory.

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

“…The direction of causality has been described as going from subjective judgments to behaviors (e.g., Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996;Nelson & Narens, 1990;Son & Schwartz, 2002), and from behaviors to subjective judgments (Benjamin & Bjork, 1996;Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson, & Kidder, 2003;Kelley & Jacoby, 1996;Matvey, Dunlosky, & Guttentag, 2001).…”

Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions.

“…We suggest that this occurred because participants regarded large items as subjectively more fluent and, thus, more memorable than small items. Other work has shown that predictions of future performance can be sensitive to fluency (Begg et al 1989;Benjamin et al, 1998;Hertzog et al, 2003;Koriat & Ma'ayan, 2005;Matvey et al, 2001; see also Kelley & Lindsay, 1993). For example, Begg et al (1989) suggested that participants "predict success for items that are easiest to process in the manner demanded by the task" (p. 610).…”

“…Several authors have demonstrated that enhancing the familiarity of a cue, for example, through repetition (e.g., Metcalfe, Schwartz, & Joaquim, 1993; see also Jameson, Narens, Goldfarb, & Nelson, 1990), elevates levels of prospective confidence. In addition, there is some indication that both ease of encoding (Begg et al, 1989;Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson, & Kidder, 2003) and the ease with which an item is retrieved before a JOL is made (e.g., Benjamin et al, 1998;Matvey, Dunlosky, & Guttentag, 2001) influence such judgments, so that participants regard easily retrieved or processed items as having a high probability of later recall. However, the prior evidence is at best indirect, and an understanding of the potential influence of perceptual qualities of stimuli on predictions of memory performance requires a direct manipulation of such qualities.…”

The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting

“…Although possible, previous research suggests that people do not have direct access to states of items in memory but that, instead, their judgments are based on heuristics and influenced by any number of cues (Serra & Metcalfe, 2009). These cues include item relatedness (Carroll, Nelson, & Kirwan, 1997;Koriat, 1997;Rabinowitz, Ackerman, Craik & Hinchley, 1982) and processing fluency (Koriat & Ma'ayan, 2005;Matvey, Dunlosky, & Guttentag, 2001), which in themselves can be predictive of subsequent performance.…”