Metamemory and aging: Relations between predicted, actual and perceived memory task performance

Abstract

Four experiments examined adult age differences in predictions and postdictions of memory task performance. The results support the conceptualization of performance predictions as constructed judgments that are influenced by a number of factors, including memory self-efficacy and task appraisal processes.Prediction accuracy varied as a function of the type of task (recall better than recognition), subject age (better accuracy by old adults), and task experience (improvement over trials). Prediction accuracy appeared to be influenced by inferences about possible levels of task performance. Different age groups were equally accurate at postdicting performance. Three of the four experiments obtained predictions both before and after study, observing an increase in the correlations of predictions with recall after study. This upgrading effect was more pronounced for younger adults relative to older adults, possibly indicating poorer monitoring of learning or the contents of memory by older adults during the construction of the after-study prediction.

Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory

“…The suggestion that predictions and postdictions of memory performance can be based on different cues is at the heart of the dissociations presented here and by others (e.g., Devolder, Brigham, & Pressley, 1990;Hertzog, Saylor, Fleece, & Dixon, 1996). As a final example of the importance of the distinction, and of the centrality of selfassessment in the improvement of metamnemonic accuracy, consider a recent result from Pritchard and Keenan (1999).…”

How is knowledge generated about memory encoding strategy effectiveness?

“…Poststudy predictions have increased correlations with subsequent recall (e.g., Connor, Dunlosky, & Hertzog, 1997;Hertzog, Saylor, Fleece, & Dixon, 1994; but see Lineweaver & Hertzog, 1998), relative to the correlations generated from prestudy predictions, indicating poststudy predictions may be more sensitive to encoding strategy differences.…”

“…It can be measured by postdictions collected after the conclusion of the recall test, in which the investigator asks individuals to estimate how many items (or percentage of items) were remembered. Postdictions are often highly accurate when made across the entire list (e.g., Devolder, Brigham, & Pressley, 1990;Hertzog et al, 1994;Pressley & Ghatala, 1989). Postdictions and CJs are not merely alternative methods of measuring performance monitoring.…”

Persistent overconfidence despite practice: The role of task experience in preschoolers’ recall predictions

“…Without experience with the particular to-be-learned items, people's judgments are based largely on their general beliefs about their memory and cannot be influenced by their monitoring of learning per se (Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2000;Hertzog, Dixon, & Hultsch, 1990). In general, research with college students and older adults indicates that predictions made prior to study are based on different factors from those made immediately after study, with the latter typically being more accurate (Hertzog, Saylor, Fleece, & Dixon, 1994).…”