Sources of information in metamemory: Judgments of learning and feelings of knowing

Abstract

Metamnemonic judgments probe people's awareness of their own memory processes. The research reviewed here is an examination of the sources of information that subjects use to make judgments oflearning (e.g., paired-associate judgments, ease-of-recognition predictions, free-recalljudgments), and feelings of knowing (e.g., speeded strategy decisions, tip-of-the-tongue states, feeling-of-knowingjudgments). The general pattern in the data suggests that subjects use different sources of information to form these judgments. Target-based sources appear to be important in judgments made at the time of acquisition, whereas cue-based judgments appear to be important in judgments made at the time of retrieval. In general, these sources of information serve as useful heuristics, and metamnemonic judgments tend to be accurate.

Effects of target set sizeon feelings of knowing and cued recall: Implications for the cue effectiveness andpartial-retrieval hypotheses

“…Although strength theory long ago was rejected as a general theory of memory, it continues to be discussed by researchers interested in FOK effects (see, e.g., Koriat, 1993;T. O. Nelson et al, 1984;Schwartz, 1994;Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992). For this reason, it is useful to discuss its relevance for the present research.…”

“…In the present context, this hypothesis has two independent components. The first component assumes that memory predictions are influenced by the degree to which the test cue seems familiar and can be recognized (see, e.g., Metcalfe, 1993;Reder, 1987Reder, , 1988Reder & Ritter, 1992;Schwartz, 1994;Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992). The second component assumes that FOKs also can be sensitive to the amount of competition that arises when the encoding of the test cue causes directly connected associates to become activated (Schreiber & D. 1.…”

“…FOKs appear to be particularly sensitive to cue-based sources of information, but that is not always the case for other tasks, such as recall (see, e.g., Metcalfe, 1993;Metcalfe, Schwartz, & Joaquim, 1993;Reder & Ritter, 1992;Schwartz, 1994;Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992). Schwartz and Metcalfe compared the effects of the degree of cue encoding (i.e., cue familiarization) and of the degree of target encoding on FOK ratings and cued recall.…”

“…One way to summarize these two sets offindings is to assume that FOKs provide a rapid means for evaluating cue effectiveness and that both cue familiarization and competition play independent roles in this evaluation. The first component of the cue effectiveness hypothesis assumes that, when prior acts ofencoding cause the test cue to be perceived as more familiar and to be recognized, people are more likely to attribute to it effectiveness in producing the target later on (see, e.g., Metcalfe, 1993;Metcalfe et al, 1993;Reder & Ritter, 1992;Schwartz, 1994;Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992). As such, the more strongly the cue was encoded in the past as a result ofrehearsal processes or other acts of encoding, the greater its perceived familiarity and the more positive the FOK.…”

Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory

“…This suggests that confidence ratings and recognition judgments appear to be based, at least in part, on the same information. To account for these effects, a variety of theories have been proposed, which are reviewed by Schwartz (1994) and briefly summarized below. Most of these studies measure either prospective confi-dence ratings taken subsequent to a study period or FOK judgments that are made in response to a cued-recall failure during test.…”