Tradeoff of semantic relatedness and degree of overlearning: Differential effects on metamemory and on long-term retention

Carroll, Marie; Nelson, Thomas O.; Kirwan, Anne

doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(96)00040-6

Cited by 56 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Value measurements may partly reXect conscious theories about conXicts and compatibilities between values, and these theories may or may not reXect the actual conXicts and compatibilities within the mental organization of values. This potential split between conscious theories of mental constructs and the actual organisation of them is now a virtual law of human social cognition (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 2002;Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) and memory (Carroll, Nelson, & Kirwan, 1997;Leonesio & Nelson, 1990) and provides a powerful argument for examining the mental organisation of values in a diVerent way.…”

Section: Unresolved Issues In Extant Tests Of Inter-value Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Basic human values: Inter-value structure in memory

Pakizeh

Gebauer

Maio

2007

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the latent structure of values. Participants rated the importance of values clustered in pairs. Based on [Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.] circular model, we predicted and found that the time to rate the second value in each pair was shorter when the two values were motivationally congruent or opposing than when the two values were unrelated (Experiment 1). As expected, this was not the case when participants had to compare the importance of values within each pair (Experiment 2). Finally, semantic relatedness between values failed to explain the eVects of motivational compatibility (Experiment 3). Taken together, these results reveal a coherent pattern of value relations driven by motivational compatibilities, over and above perceived semantic relatedness.

show abstract

Section: Unresolved Issues In Extant Tests Of Inter-value Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Basic human values: Inter-value structure in memory

Pakizeh

Gebauer

Maio

2007

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, when making a JOL, people presumably draw inferences about their future performance based on a variety of cues pertaining to the task (Koriat, 1997). Researchers have discovered numerous cues that influence JOLs (e.g., Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz, 1998;Carroll, Nelson, & Kirwan, 1997;Dunlosky & Nelson, 1994;Koriat, 1997); our approach complements this research by investigating the nature of the inference that mediates the effects of particular cues on a person's JOLs. In particular, we evaluated how one cue, the fluency of retrieval at study, influences people's JOLs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

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

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ariel

Dunlosky

2010

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people judge their learning of items across study-test trials, their accuracy in discriminating between learned and unlearned items improves on the second trial. We examined the source of this improvement by estimating the contribution of three factors-memory for past test performance (MPT), new learning, and forgetting-to accuracy on trial 2. In Experiment 1, during an initial trial, participants studied paired associates, made a judgment of learning (JOL) for each one, and were tested. During the second trial, we manipulated two variables: when the JOL was made (either immediately before or after studying an item) and whether participants were told the outcome of the initial recall attempt on trial 1. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was used with a 1-week retention interval between study and test on trial 2. In both experiments, JOL resolution was higher on trial 2 than on trial 1. Finegrained analyses of JOL magnitude and decomposition of resolution supported several conclusions. First, MPT contributed the most to boosts in JOL magnitude and improvements in resolution across trials. Second, JOLs and subsequent resolution were sensitive to new learning and forgetting, but only when participants' judgments were made after study. Thus, JOLs appear to integrate information from multiple factors, and these factors jointly contribute to JOL resolution.

show abstract

Tradeoff of semantic relatedness and degree of overlearning: Differential effects on metamemory and on long-term retention

Cited by 56 publications

References 11 publications

Basic human values: Inter-value structure in memory

Basic human values: Inter-value structure in memory

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About