Search

A judgment of leaning (JOL) has been investigated to understand self-regulated learning. However, asking participants to make JOLs may increase memory by creating a reactivity effect. In two experiments, we examined whether making JOLs would enhance memory by inducing item-specific processing. We compared a JOL task with two other tasks that are known to induce item-specific processing: pleasantness rating (Experiment 1) and single imagery (Experiment 2; creating vivid mental images). Participants learned a categorized or uncategorized list of words. Memory should be enhanced when the list promotes relational processing and the task induces item-specific processing. As expected, when the list was categorized, recall was higher in the JOL and item-specific processing conditions (pleasantness rating and single imagery) than in the control condition. Furthermore, recall was similar between the JOL and item-specific processing conditions. When the list was uncategorized, there was no difference in recall among the JOL, item-specific processing, and control conditions. Making JOLs enhances memory by inducing item-specific processing. We concluded that researchers need to carefully consider how making a JOL influences memory when investigating self-regulated study behaviors.

Words presented in larger font size are considered more memorable and rated with higher judgments of learning (JOLs). One explanation for this phenomenon is that people believe that font size affects memory. However, it is not clear why people hold this belief. One alternative is that font size represents importance, with larger fonts implying more relevant information. More important information is judged as more memorable and is, in fact, better remembered. In Experiments 1 and 2 we presented words in small (18 points) and extra-large font (250 points) and found higher JOLs and higher judgments of importance with extra-large fonts. A mediation analysis showed that importance accounted for 21-23% of the effect of font size on JOLs. In Experiment 3, we tested whether processing fluency was higher with the extra-large font. In a lexical decision task, participants were slower at detecting words and non-words with extra-large than small font, which is the opposite of what the processing fluency hypothesis predicts. This result shows that the font-size effect persists even in conditions in which perceived fluency should be lower. In sum, this research explained the belief that font size affects memory because words in larger fonts are considered more important.

Researchers have evaluated how broad categories of emotion (i.e. positive and negative) influence judgments of learning (JOLs) relative to neutral items. Specifically, JOLs are typically higher for emotional relative to neutral items. The novel goal of the present research was to evaluate JOLs for fine-grained categories of emotion. Participants studied faces with afraid, angry, sad, or neutral expressions (Experiment 1) and with afraid, angry, or sad expressions (Experiment 2). Participants identified the expressed emotion, made a JOL for each, and completed a recognition test. JOLs were higher for the emotional relative to neutral expressions. However, JOLs were insensitive to the categories of negative emotion. Using a survey design in Experiment 3, participants demonstrated idiosyncratic beliefs about emotion. Some people believed the fine-grained emotions were equally memorable, whereas others believed a specific emotion (e.g. anger) was most memorable. Thus, beliefs about emotion are nuanced, which has important implications for JOL theory.

Learners often allocate more study time to challenging items than to easier ones. Nevertheless, both predicted and actual memory performance are typically worse for difficult than for easier items. The resulting inverse relations between people's predictions of their memory performance (judgments of learning; JOLs) and self-paced study time (ST) are often explained by bottom-up, data-driven ST allocation that is based on fluency. However, we demonstrate robust inverted U-shaped relations between JOLs and ST that cannot be explained by data-driven ST allocation alone. Consequently, we explored how two models of top-down, strategic ST allocation account for curvilinear JOL-ST relations. First, according to the Region of Proximal Learning model, people stop quickly on items for which they experience too little progress in learning. Second, according to the Diminishing Criterion Model, people set a time limit and stop studying when this time limit is reached. In three experiments, we manipulated motivation with different methods and examined which model best described JOL-ST relations. Consistent with the Diminishing Criterion Model but not with the Region of Proximal Learning model, results revealed that curvilinearity was due to people setting a time limit.

Many studies have found the font size of to-be-remembered words has a significant influence on judgments of learning (JOLs). However, few studies have investigated whether JOLs are affected by the mental imagery size of to-be-remembered words, even when the font sizes themselves are kept identical in study materials. This study investigated whether the visual mental imagery size influences the participants' JOLs and what the underlying mechanisms are. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants learned words with identical font sizes, mentally generated large or small imageries and then made JOLs. We found that JOLs under the large imagery condition were significantly higher than those under the small imagery condition, but actual recall performance exhibited no significant difference. In Experiment 3, participants pressed a button immediately after mental imagery generation and showed that it took significantly longer to generate large imageries than to generate small imageries, and the difference in JOLs between two conditions was no longer significant. In Experiment 4, we used a questionnaire to investigate the contribution of beliefs and found that participants believed large imageries were easier to remember. These findings indicate that imagery size has a significant impact on JOLs, in which beliefs may play a leading role.

Previous research has shown that the animacy quality of materials affects basic cognitive processes such as memory (i.e., animate stimuli are remembered better than are inanimate stimuli). This is referred to as the animacy effect. Little research has examined, however, whether this effect can be extended to higher cognitive processes such as metamemory. In the present studies, we investigated the influence of animacy on judgments of learning (JOLs) and the underlying basis of the animacy effect, namely, processing fluency and beliefs about the animacy effect. In Experiment 1, participants studied animate and inanimate words and made immediate JOLs. Results revealed that participants gave higher estimates for animate than they did for inanimate words. In Experiments 2a and 2b, we evaluated the contribution of processing fluency to the animacy effect either by measuring self-paced study time or by disrupting fluency by presenting half of the words in an easy or difficult font style. Results from both experiments indicated that processing fluency contributes minimally to the animacy effect. In questionnaire-based Experiment 3, participants estimated hypothetical participants would better remember the animate words than the inanimate words, suggesting the potential role of beliefs on the animacy effect on JOLs. To conclude, these findings suggest that animacy is a reliable cue when people monitor their learning in higher cognitive processes. The beliefs, not processing fluency, contribute substantially to the animacy effect on JOLs.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are higher for identical pairs (dog-dog) than for related pairs (dog-cat). This identical effect may be mediated (a) by processing fluency (i.e., identical pairs are processed faster than related pairs) or (b) by a belief that identical pairs are better remembered or (c) by both factors. In the present work, we assessed the contribution of both factors. We evaluated whether a measure of processing fluency (i.e., self-paced study) mediated the relationship between pair type and JOLs (Experiment 1) and attempted to disrupt processing fluency using an AlTeRnAtInG presentation format (Experiment 2). We also evaluated whether judgments made in the absence of processing fluency demonstrated the identical effect (Experiment 3), and, finally, we had participants read a vignette about an experiment that included both pair types and estimate which pairs would be best remembered (Experiment 4). Evidence from all experiments converged on the conclusion that people's beliefs about how variables affect memory--and not differential fluency--best explain the identical effect, although we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that fluency plays a small role. The outcomes were consistent with the analytic-processing theory of JOLs--namely, when instructed to make JOLs, people adopt an analytic problem-solving approach that involves identifying variation across pairs that plausibly relate to memory and then use this variation to make JOLs.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are assumed to be made inferentially, based on cues. This cue-utilization approach substituted the theory that memory strength guides JOLs. The rejection of this theory ignores the existence of two memory systems: working memory (WM), which holds representations immediately accessible, and long-term memory (LTM), which is a permanent store. By manipulating and measuring WM strength, we tested a revised version of the memory-strength theory in which JOLs are guided by WM representations. In Experiment 1, participants memorized sequences of two or four colored objects, then they provided JOLs for an LTM test of these objects, and performed a WM test on the objects' colors. After learning 200 objects, the LTM test followed. Sequence-length affected WM, but not LTM performance. JOLs, however, were higher for sequences of two than for four objects and correlated higher with WM than LTM performance. We replicated these results with a simultaneous presentation of the objects (Experiment 2), in the absence of a WM test (Experiment 3), and in a word-pair task (Experiment 4). Overall, our findings are consistent with the revised memory-strength theory. WM strength should therefore be considered when examining the factors guiding JOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research suggests that making Judgments of Learning (JOLs) can significantly influence memory performance, commonly known as JOL reactivity. While recent investigations have highlighted the role of learning material attributes in JOL reactivity, the impact of emotions on this process has received less attention. Additionally, the cognitive mechanisms underlying JOL reactivity remain debated. This study aimed to investigate the influence of emotion on JOL reactivity and its associated cognitive mechanisms. In Experiment 1, participants were assigned to make JOLs or refrain from such judgments while learning adjectives with positive, negative, and neutral valences. Subsequently, they underwent a recognition test. The results revealed that participants displayed JOL reactivity when exposed to positive and neutral words, but not when encountering negative words. Experiment 2, utilizing nouns as learning material and manipulating the emotion of new words in the recognition test, replicated the findings of Experiment 1. Collectively, both experiments demonstrated distinct effects of emotions on JOL reactivity. These findings provide support for the enhanced learning engagement theory of JOL reactivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractMaking judgments of learning (JOLs) can directly influence memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect of JOLs. However, controversy surrounds the mechanism behind JOL reactivity. This study employs related and unrelated word pairs as learning materials to compare memory outcomes across different JOL conditions. We contrasted the traditional JOL reactivity paradigm with a covert retrieval induction paradigm to explore whether JOLs impact memory through covert retrieval. In Experiment 1, data from 40 participants (18 females, 22 males) were analyzed, revealed distinct patterns between the two paradigms. When word pairs are presented entirely, the JOL group outperforms the no-JOL group in memorizing related pairs, aligning with traditional JOL reactivity. Conversely, when target words are omitted, the JOL group’s memory resembles that of the no-JOL group. This comparison suggested that JOLs may prompt covert retrieval. In Experiment 2, which involved manipulating the retrieval strength, data from 52 participants (46 females, 6 males) were analyzed, yielded results consistent with those of Experiment 1. We conclude that covert retrieval significantly contributes to the JOL reactivity effect, enhancing memory through JOL-induced covert retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has shown a clear self-reference effect in our memory. However, the question arises as to whether this effect could extend to higher cognitive domains such as metamemory. Thus, this study examined the effects of different encoding types on judgments of learning (JOLs) and explored the role of beliefs in this process. A one-way (encoding type: semantic, self-referential) within-participants design was employed in Experiment 1, which found no self-reference effect in JOLs. In Experiment 2, we manipulated participants' beliefs to explore their effect on JOLs under different encoding strategies. The results showed that learners' metamemory beliefs about encoding types influence JOLs. Learners who believed that self-referential and semantic encoding had the same memory effect tended to give equal JOLs to both words. However, learners who believed that self-referential encoding had a better memory effect than semantic encoding gave higher JOLs to self-referentially encoded words. The conclusions are as follows: There is no self-reference effect in JOLs, but learners' metamemory beliefs about encoding types influence JOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite research showing that perceptually fluent stimuli (i.e., stimuli that are easier to process) are given higher judgment of learning (JOL) ratings than perceptually disfluent stimuli, it remains unknown whether the influence of perceptual fluency on JOLs is driven by the fluent or disfluent items. Moreover, it is unclear whether this difference hinges on relative differences in fluency. The current study addressed these unanswered questions by employing (Fiacconi et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46:926–944, 2020), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46[5], 926–944) letter set priming procedure. In this procedure, participants are first exposed to words containing only a subset of letters. Following this exposure, JOLs to new words composed of the same letters (i.e., fluent), and new words composed of nonexposed letters (i.e., disfluent) are compared with isolate the contribution of perceptual fluency. Because this procedure does not rely on parametric variations in perceptual features, we can directly assess the potential benefit and/or cost of fluent and disfluent items, respectively, by including neutral baseline conditions. Moreover, implementing both a mixed- and pure-list design allowed us to assess the comparative nature of perceptual fluency on JOLs. Counter to previous assumptions, our results are the first to demonstrate that perceptual disfluency decreases JOLs. Moreover, we found that the influence of perceptual disfluency on JOLs hinges on the relative differences in fluency between items even in the absence of a belief about the mnemonic impact of the fluency manipulation. These findings have important implications as they provide evidence that the difficulty, rather than ease, of information form the basis of individuals metacognitive judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful recognition is generally thought to be based on both recollection and familiarity of studied information. Recent studies found that making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively facilitate recognition performance, a form of reactivity effect on memory. The current study aimed to explore the roles of recollection and familiarity in the reactivity effect on recognition performance. Experiment 1 replicated the positive reactivity effect on recognition performance. Experiment 2 used the sequential remember/know (R/K) procedure, Experiment 3 utilized the simultaneous R/K procedure, and Experiment 4 inserted a long study-test interval (i.e., 24-h) to determine the roles of recollection and familiarity in the reactivity effect. These three experiments converged in demonstrating that making JOLs reactively facilitated recognition performance through enhancing both recollection and familiarity. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between the reactive influences on recollection and familiarity. The documented findings imply that the JOL reactivity effect on recognition is supported by two underlying mechanisms: greater recollection induced by enhanced distinctiveness, and superior familiarity induced by enhanced learning engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively alter memory itself, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study recorded electroencephalography (EEG) signals during the encoding phase of a word list learning task to explore the neurocognitive features associated with JOL reactivity. The behavioral results show that making JOLs reactively enhances recognition performance. The EEG results reveal that, compared with not making JOLs, making JOLs increases P200 and LPC amplitudes and decreases alpha and beta power. Additionally, the signals of event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related desynchronizations (ERDs) partially mediate the reactivity effect. These findings support the enhanced learning engagement theory and the elaborative processing explanation to account for the JOL reactivity effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictions about memory involve the use of metacognition, and metacognition can rely on various cues. The present study investigated metacognition and recall performance when to-be-remembered words differed in font size and emotional valence, to determine what cues are utilised when making metacognitive judgments. Participants were presented with lists of words varying in font size (small and large) and emotional valence (negative and neutral) and were asked to remember as many words as possible for a later recall test while engaging in item-level metacognitive assessments. Specifically, after studying each word, participants either made only judgments of learning (JOLs, Experiment 1) or both JOLs and restudy judgments (Experiment 2). Across experiments, results revealed that while JOLs were sensitive to both font size and emotional valence, restudy judgments were mostly sensitive to emotional valence, and participants' metacognitive assessments mapped onto memory performance generally for emotional words. Additionally, we found that the effect of font size on metacognition and memory was robust to experience-based learning. Together, the current study extends our understanding of how emotion and font size affect metacognition (monitoring and control) and memory and suggests that when presented with multiple cues, certain diagnostic cues can be harnessed to mitigate metacognitive illusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two sources of evidence seem to be shared by judgments of past recognition and judgments of future performance: item memory or familiarity (i.e., memory for the item independent of the context in which it was experienced) and context memory or recollection (i.e., memory for the context specific to a particular prior encounter). However, there are few studies investigating the link between these two putative memory processes and judgments of learning (JOLs). We tested memory and metamemory using a continuous exclusion procedure – a modified recognition memory task where study events for two classes of items are interleaved with test trials in which the subject must endorse items from one class and reject items from the other. This procedure allowed us to estimate the influences of memory for context and memory for item on JOLs and licenses conclusions about the relative role of item and context information in supporting JOLs. An analysis of forgetting revealed that JOLs reflect both the initial degree of learning and the rate of forgetting, but only of memory for context and not of memory for items. These findings suggest that JOLs are predictive of memory for context-bound episodes, rather than for the semantic content of those episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The font size effect refers to the metacognitive illusion that larger fonts lead to higher judgments of learning (JOLs) but not better recall. Prior studies demonstrated robust JOL effects of font size under conditions of intra-item relation (i.e., cue–target relatedness within a word pair), even though intra-item relation is a more diagnostic cue than font size. However, it remains an open question whether the JOL effects of font size persist under conditions of inter-item relation (i.e., relations across items on a single-word list). In the current study, we examined the JOL and recall effects of font size when font size and inter-item relation were factorially manipulated in three JOL-recall experiments. Additionally, to manipulate the salience of inter-item relation, we presented related and unrelated lists in a blocked manner in Experiment 1 but in a mixed manner in Experiments 2 and 3. Our results showed that the JOL effects of font size are moderated or eliminated when inter-item relation is manipulated simultaneously with font size. Moreover, the smaller font led to better recall for related lists but not for unrelated lists across all three experiments. Therefore, our results demonstrate that individual cues may not be integrated with equal weight, and there can be a trade-off between item-specific and relational processing during the JOL process. Additionally, highlighting key information with larger fonts may not be optimal with related items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem – Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja – Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue—font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The font‐size effect on judgments of learning (JOLs) refers to large‐font words being rated as more memorable than small ones when required to predict memory performance during the study phase. This study examines perceptual contrast as the prerequisite for this font‐size effect on JOLs and explores how perceptual contrast leads to this effect. In Experiment 1, perceptual contrast was achieved by inserting words with one font (e.g., 18 pt) into a series of words with another font (e.g., 70 pt) at a particular proportion (1:4). In Experiment 2, perceptual contrast was manipulated by presenting two different font words up and down in a pair. The results of both experiments showed that: (1) participants rated higher JOLs for large than small fonts under the contrast conditions, but the JOL difference between the two fonts was not significant under the no‐contrast conditions; (2) the JOLs of small‐font words under the contrast conditions was reduced compared with the no‐contrast conditions, but the JOLs of large‐font words under the contrast conditions was increased compared with the no‐contrast conditions. These results indicated that perceptual contrast was the prerequisite for the font‐size effect on JOLs. The reason for this effect is that, compared to no‐contrast conditions, perceptual contrast reduces the JOLs of small‐font words while increasing the JOLs of large‐font words. This study may deepen researchers' understanding of the mechanism of the font‐size effect on JOLs and help educators effectively guide students to learn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After a crime is committed, investigators may query witnesses about whether they believe they will be to identify the perpetrator. However, we know little about how such metacognitive judgments are related to performance on a subsequent lineup identification task. The extant research has found the strength of this relationship to be small or nonexistent, which conflicts with the large body of literature indicating a moderate relationship between predictions and performance on memory tasks. In Studies 1–3, we induce variation in encoding quality by having participants watch a mock crime video with either low, medium, or high exposure quality, and then assess their future lineup performance. Calibration analysis revealed that assessments of future lineup performance were predictive of identification accuracy. This relationship was driven primarily by poor performance following low assessments. Studies 4 and 5 showed that these predictions are not based on a witness's evaluation of their encoding experience, nor on a contemporaneous assessment of memory strength. These results reinforce the argument that variation in memory quality is needed to obtain reliable relationships between predictions and performance. An unexpected finding is that witnesses who made a prediction shortly after encoding evinced superior memory compared to those who made a prediction later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy–cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively change memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study was designed to explore whether the reactivity effect transfers to subsequent learning of new information. Participants studied two blocks of words (Experiment 1) or related word pairs (Experiments 2 & 3). In Block 1, participants in the experimental (JOL) group made a JOL while studying each item, whereas the control (no-JOL) group did not make item-by-item JOLs. Then both groups studied Block 2, in which they did not make JOLs, and finally, they took a test on Blocks 1 and 2. Across Experiments 1 −3, the results showed superior Block 1 test performance in the JOL than in the no-JOL group, demonstrating a positive reactivity effect. Critically, there was minimal difference in Block 2 test performance between the two groups, implying little transfer of the positive reactivity effect to subsequent learning of new information. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that the reactivity effect still failed to transfer even when participants explicitly appreciated the benefits of making JOLs. Educational implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Item memory (e.g., recall or recognition of specific items) can reactively change when metacognitively monitored via judgments of learning (JOLs). The current research explores whether memory for inter-item relations (e.g., semantic relations among list items) is reactively influenced by JOLs. Participants in Experiment 1 studied rhyming word pairs for which the target words were semantically-related category exemplars. The word pairs were presented in a category-blocked order during the study phase to increase the saliency of inter-target relations. The results showed that making JOLs had little influence on free recall of the target words, but disrupted semantic clustering, reflecting negative reactivity in memory for inter-item relations. The pre-registered Experiment 2 successfully replicated the main findings of Experiment 1. Experiment 3 found that, when the word pairs were presented in a random order (i.e., not blocked by category, leading to minimal semantic clustering at recall) during the study phase, free recall of target words was enhanced by JOLs, reflecting positive reactivity in item memory. The dissociable reactivity effects on item and inter-item relational memory found in these experiments support an item-relational memory account which hypothesizes that when a given strategy enhances item-specific processing, it concurrently diverts encoding resources away from inter-item relational processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emotional information pervades experiences in daily life. Numerous studies have established that emotional materials and information are easier to remember than neutral ones, a phenomenon known as the emotional salience effect on memory. In recent years, an emerging body of research has begun to explore the effect of emotion on metamemory. Preliminary findings show that participants offer higher judgments of learning (JOLs) to emotional than to neutral stimuli, a phenomenon termed the emotional salience effect on JOLs. The present meta-analysis integrated data from 1,887 participants, extracted from 17 qualifying studies, to examine the effects of emotion on JOLs and memory and to explore potential moderators of these effects. The results showed a medium-sized (g = 0.53 [0.41, 0.64]) emotional salience effect on JOLs, which was moderated by age and material type, as well as a small to medium (g = 0.38 [0.25, 0.51) emotional salience effect on memory, which was moderated by test format. These findings establish that emotionality is a salient cue in the theoretical framework of metamemory, and also provide some practical implications (e.g., in eyewitness testimony). However, more research is needed, especially employing high-powered pre-registered experiments, to address the signals of publication bias detected in this meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing judgments of learning (JOLs) at study tends to produce reactive effects on recall of cue–target word pairs. This reactivity generally produces memory improvements (i.e., positive reactivity) but only for related word pairs. For unrelated pairs, reactivity is typically not observed. Researchers have primarily investigated reactivity using study lists that contain at least two distinct pair types (i.e., related vs. unrelated pairs). Using these mixed lists, reactivity may occur because participants use distinguishing pair characteristics to inform their study goals (i.e., prioritizing related vs. unrelated pairs). The present study examined whether detection of separate pair types within mixed lists is a requisite for reactivity to occur. Experiment 1 replicated previous work showing that in mixed lists, JOLs produced positive reactivity on related pairs but are nonreactive on unrelated pairs. Importantly, Experiment 1 also found that these patterns extended to pure lists, in which only one pair type is presented. Experiments 2 and 3 then extended these patterns to backward and symmetrical paired associates. Finally, across experiments, reactivity patterns reported for JOLs extended to frequency of co-occurrence judgments across pair and list types. Our findings that reactivity patterns consistently emerge using pure lists supports a cue-strengthening account of reactivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trying to guess what the correct answer to a question might be can facilitate future learning of this answer when presented in the form of corrective feedback. One issue that determines the effectiveness of guessing as a learning strategy is the timing of the presentation of feedback: it can be presented either immediately after the guess, or after a delay. Whereas the timing of feedback is of little importance for complex materials such as trivia questions, previous research suggests that for simpler materials such as related word pairs guessing seems to benefit learning only when feedback is immediate. In order to test whether this always has to be the case, we conducted two experiments in which we increased the richness of study materials by superimposing the to-be-learned word pairs over unrelated context pictures. We then manipulated the match between contexts at study and at test (Experiment 1) and at the time of feedback delivery (Experiment 2). Contrary to previous studies showing no benefits of guessing with delayed feedback, our results show that learning related word pairs can benefit from guessing even when feedback is delayed. These benefits of guessing occur if participants are reminded via reinstated contexts of the guessing stage at the time of feedback delivery. Our results help constrain theories of guessing benefits and extend theories of reminding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can sometimes modify subsequent memory performance, which is referred to as JOL reactivity. We evaluated two major theoretical explanations of JOL reactivity and used the dual-retrieval model to pinpoint the retrieval processes that are modified by JOLs. The changed-goal hypothesis assumes that JOLs highlight differences in item difficulty and switch learners' goals from mastering all items to focusing more on easier items at the expense of harder ones. It follows that JOLs should impair recall for harder items (negative reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis posits that JOLs strengthen the cues that inform JOLs. Thus, JOLs should enhance recall (positive reactivity) when memory tests are sensitive to those cues. In Experiment 1, we compared the reactivity of item-level JOLs between three types of word pairs that differ in difficulty: identical, strongly related, and weakly related pairs. In Experiment 2, we tested whether prestudy JOLs produced similar reactivity as immediate JOLs for items that differed in difficulty (related versus unrelated word pairs). In Experiment 3, we investigated whether JOL reactivity was moderated by relations among to-be-recalled items (related or unrelated), JOL type (item-level or list-level), and test format (associative or free recall). Across the three experiments, there was converging support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. Moreover, the dual-retrieval model revealed a consistent process-level pattern that positive JOL reactivity was always accompanied by enhanced direct retrieval of verbatim memories. Under some conditions, JOLs also enhanced reconstructive retrieval and familiarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue—font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall.

Judgments of learning are most accurate when made at a delay from the initial encoding of the assessed material. A wealth of evidence suggests that this is because a delay encourages participants to base their predictions on cues retrieved from long-term memory, which are generally the most diagnostic of later memory performance. We investigated the hypothesis that different types of study techniques affect delayed JOL accuracy by influencing the accessibility of cues stored in long-term memory. In two experiments, we measured the delayed-JOL accuracy of participants who encoded semantically unrelated and weakly related word pairs through one of three study techniques: reading the pairs twice (study practice), generating keywords (elaborative encoding), or taking a cued-recall test with feedback (retrieval practice). We also measured the accessibility, utilization, and diagnostic quality of two long-term memory cues at the time of the delayed JOL: (a) retrieval of the target, and (b) noncriterial cues (retrieval of contextual details pertaining to the encoding of the target). We found that the accessibility of targets was positively associated with delayed-JOL accuracy. Further, we provide evidence that when study techniques enhance the accessibility of targets, they likewise enhance delayed-JOL accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated relationships between psychometric measures of memory, executive functions (EFs), and task-based measures of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) in individuals with and without Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), to study functional reorganization after TBI. We hypothesized that, in controls, accuracy of immediate JOLs would be associated with short-term memory and EFs (but not long-term memory, LTM), while accuracy of delayed JOLs would be associated primarily with LTM. We hypothesized that those with good recovery from TBI would demonstrate functional reorganization of the relationships between memory, EFs, and JOLs. Eighteen individuals with TBI and 18 matched controls completed eight neuropsychological tests of memory and EFs. They studied word-pairs, made immediate and delayed JOLs, and took a cued-recall test for the studied word-pairs. Stepwise regression and Lasso analyses generated a predictive model of JOL accuracy for each group. Accuracy of immediate JOLs in controls was predicted by short-term memory, inhibition, switching, and cognitive fluency, while accuracy of delayed JOLs was predicted by verbal recall. In individuals with TBI, inhibition predicted immediate JOL accuracy and switching predicted delayed JOL accuracy. Cognitive reorganization in those with good long-term recovery from TBI may account for the ability to make JOLs with accuracy similar to controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) often produce a reactive effect on the learning of cue-target pairs in which target recall differs between participants who provide item-based JOLs at study versus those who do not. Positive reactivity, or the memory improvement found when JOLs are provided, is typically observed on related pairs, while no reactivity is commonly found on unrelated pairs. In four experiments, we examined JOL reactivity effects by comparing JOL and no-JOL groups to other groups who engaged in relational-type encoding/judgment tasks. Experiment 1 replicated positive JOL reactivity effects with related pairs with an extension to symmetrically related pairs. Next, Experiment 2 found that providing judgments of associative memory—a task that does not involve memory predictions—yielded equivalent reactivity patterns as JOLs. Experiment 3 replicated this reactivity pattern using a frequency of co-occurrence judgment task. Finally, In Experiment 4, a similar positive reactivity pattern was found using a relational encoding task when compared to a standard JOL. Collectively, our results suggest that previous JOL reactivity patterns are not solely due to memory forecasting processes via JOLs and likely reflect relational encoding that is strategically applied towards related, but not unrelated pairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The font size effect is a metamemory illusion in which larger-font items produce higher judgments of learning (JOLs) but not better memory, relative to smaller-font items. We conducted meta-analyses to determine what is currently known about how font size affects JOLs and memory accuracy. In addition, we implemented both univariate and multivariate meta-regressions to isolate the moderators of JOL effects and memory effects. The results revealed a small-to-moderate effect of font size on JOLs. There was also a small but significant effect of font size on memory. This suggests that JOLs and memory accuracy both increase with font size, rather than being completely dissociated. Moreover, JOL-memory dissociation only occurred when font size ranged between very small and intermediate. Our working explanation is that the memory effects of font size are tied to (dis)fluency, but its JOL effects are not. Some boundary conditions were identified for font size effects on both JOLs and memory. Specifically, larger font sizes only reliably increased both JOLs and memory accuracy (a) when font sizes ranged from intermediate to very large, (b) when study materials were unrelated word lists, (c) when JOLs were solicited immediately after encoding, and (d) when study time was relatively brief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOL) are often used to assess memory monitoring at encoding. Participants study a cue-target word pair (e.g., mouse-cheese) and are asked to rate the probability of correctly recalling the target in the presence of the cue at test (e.g., mouse -?). Prior research has shown that JOL accuracy is sensitive to perceptual cues. These cues can produce metamemory illusions in which JOLs overestimate memory, such as the font-size effect (Rhodes & Castel, 2008), which occurs when participants inflate JOLs for pairs presented in large versus small fonts without a concomitant increase to recall. The present study further tests the font-size effect and examines whether other perceptual manipulations can affect the correspondence between JOLs and recall. Experiments 1A and 1B were designed to replicate the font-size effect and test whether the effect extended to highlighted pairs that were related or unrelated in the same study list. Experiment 2A and 2B examined font size and highlighting effects on JOLs using only unrelated pairs. Finally, Experiment 3 tested whether Sans Forgetica—a perceptually disfluent font designed to improve memory—would result in inflated JOLs and/or recall. Large fonts similarly increased both JOLs and recall relative to small fonts, highlights had no effect on JOLs or recall, and Sans Forgetica font yielded a memory cost (though no effect on JOLs). Collectively, perceptually fluent and disfluent study pairs do not appear to inflate JOLs relative to subsequent recall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies found that making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively facilitate memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect of JOLs. The current study was designed to explore (1) whether making judgments of forgetting (JOFs) can also enhance memory and (2) whether there is any difference between the reactivity effects of JOFs and JOLs. Experiment 1 found that soliciting JOFs significantly enhanced retention of single words. Experiments 2 and 3 observed minimal difference in reactivity effects between JOFs and JOLs on learning of single words and word pairs. Finally, a meta-analysis was conducted to integrate results across studies to explore whether retention of items studied with JOLs differed from that of items studied with JOFs. The meta-analytic results showed minimal difference. Overall, the documented findings imply that (1) making JOFs reactively enhances memory, and (2) there is little difference in reactivity effects between JOFs and JOLs. These findings support the positive-reactivity theory to account for the reactivity effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability to selectively focus on and remember important information, referred to as value-directed remembering, may be crucial for effective memory functioning. In the present study, we investigated the relationships between metacognitive monitoring and control accuracy, selectivity for valuable information, and fluid intelligence. Mediation analyses demonstrated that participants' monitoring assessments and later recall were influenced by the value of the to-be-learned words and the accuracy of participants' judgments was moderated by fluid intelligence. Moreover, recall, selectivity, metacognitive awareness of selectivity, and metacognitive accuracy all generally increased with task experience, demonstrating participants' ability to improve their memory by utilizing cognitive resources more effectively. Together the results suggest that people may be aware of the need to be selective, and engaging in value-directed remembering may be related to higher-level cognitive skills associated with problem-solving and reasoning. Specifically, the strategic use of memory may be involved in focusing on important information, and the metacognitive processes that allow for this prioritization of memory may be related to more general problem-solving abilities that involve identifying important features of information to guide cognition in a broader context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When learners make judgments of learning (JOLs) for some word pairs but not others, how and why is recall performance affected? Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for a randomly selected half of the pairs. We evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in pair difficulty and to change their learning goal. Because JOLs are manipulated within participants, such a goal change should influence how all (judged or non-judged) pairs are processed on the list, which should lead to no JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity (i.e., higher recall for judged versus non-judged pairs) for related than unrelated pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the two words in a pair, which would be more beneficial for pairs with an a priori relationship. Across experiments, we found positive reactivity for both related and unrelated pairs (albeit to a lesser degree for the latter). We also found no evidence that learners make qualitative changes in their reported strategy use when judging pairs. Making JOLs for some pairs on a list influenced memory performance and the pattern of reactivity provided support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Memory for naturalistic pictures is exceptionally good. However, little is known about people's ability to monitor the memorability of naturalistic pictures. We report the first systematic investigation into the accuracy and basis of metamemory in this domain. People studied pictures of naturalistic scenes, predicted their chances of recognizing each picture at a later test (judgment of learning, JOL), and completed a recognition memory test. Across three experiments, JOLs revealed substantial accuracy. This was due to people basing their JOLs on multiple cues, most of which predicted recognition memory. Identified cues include intrinsic picture attributes (e.g., peacefulness of scenes; scenes with or without persons) and extrinsic aspects of the study situation (e.g., presentation frequency; semantic distinctiveness of scenes with respect to the context). This work provides a better understanding of metamemory for pictures and it demonstrates close parallels between metamemory for naturalistic scenes and verbal materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives If older adults (OAs) are focused on emotionally meaningful goals in late life, they should demonstrate memory biases for positive stimuli over neutral and negative stimuli and, arguably, these cognitive biases should be reflected in their metacognitive judgments of learning (JOLs). To address this question, we examined age differences in metacognitive monitoring of emotionally valenced stimuli. Method Younger adults (YAs) and OAs (N = 85) studied positive, neutral, and negative words and made immediate JOLs, followed by a 2-alternative forced choice (2AFC) recognition memory task. Results Analyses of JOLs revealed evidence for a positivity effect in metacognitive judgments for OAs and an emotional salience effect in YAs. YAs recognized more words than OAs, but valence did not affect number of words recognized and did not moderate age differences in memory (p =.055). Memory monitoring as measured by resolution accuracy was equivalent in YAs and OAs. Positive affect was higher and negative affect was lower in OAs relative to YAs, lending additional evidence to the emergence of a positive orientation in older adulthood. Discussion These results provide intriguing and novel support for the positivity effect in the domain of metacognitive aging, adding to what is known in memory, attention, and emotion domains. Our findings fall squarely within socioemotional and metacognitive theoretical frameworks from which they were derived. We discuss research directions that might identify mechanisms by which affective states and stimuli interact to produce metacognitive outcomes in late life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has documented that cognitive conflict affects basic cognitive processes such as memory, reasoning, and attention allocation. However, little research has explored whether its effect can be extended to higher cognitive processes such as metacognitive monitoring. The current study took a novel variant of a Stroop task that employed words presented in a color opposite to the color of the object itself (e.g., heart, presented in green) or same as the color of the object (e.g., forest, presented in green) as targets, an important form of metacognitive monitoring—judgments of learning (JOLs) was used as the measurement index to investigate the influence of cognitive conflict on metacognitive monitoring and to delineate the potential mechanisms underlying the cognitive conflict effect on JOLs. In Experiment 1, results showed that participants gave higher JOLs to consistent than to conflict words, even though cognitive conflict had little influence on memory recall. Experiment 2, employing a self-paced study task, found that conflict words were processed less rapidly than consistent ones, and the difference in processing fluency significantly mediated the cognitive conflict effect on JOLs. Experiment 3 employed an observer–learner task; the mediation analysis showed a complete mediation role of metamemory beliefs (observation JOLs) in the relationship between word type and JOLs. In Experiment 4, research results suggested that participants' beliefs about processing fluency played an important role in the cognitive conflict effect. To conclude, cognitive conflict is a reliable factor affecting higher cognitive processes (metamemory monitoring). Both processing fluency and metamemory beliefs tend to contribute to the cognitive conflict effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the widely accepted cue-utilization view, judgments of learning (JOLs) are thought to be comparative in nature, such that they are sensitive to the relative differences between stimuli. Here, we report the results of three experiments that both support and extend this tenet of the cue-utilization view by examining the impact of relative differences on metacognitive control strategies, including study-time allocation and re-study selection. By presenting word pairs of medium-difficulty intermixed with either easy or difficult word pairs we manipulated list composition to assess the impact of the relative difference between items on individuals' JOLs (Experiments 1 and 2a), study-time allocation (Experiment 1), and re-study selection (Experiments 2a and 2b). First, our manipulation of list composition demonstrated that stimuli of equal difficulty are judged to be more or less memorable depending on the context in which they are presented, thereby confirming previous findings that JOLs are sensitive to the relative differences among items. Second, with regard to metacognitive control strategies, our results indicated that list composition may not impact all control strategies in the same fashion. Specifically, the relative differences between items did not appear to influence the amount of study time allocated to a given item, but did affect which items were selected for re-study. These findings have important applied implications, and may assist in the development of more effective guidance on how to best engage in self-regulated learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are usually higher for high-frequency words than for low-frequency words, which has been attributed to beliefs about how word frequency affects memory. The main goal of the present study was to explore if identifying word frequency as a relevant cue is necessary for it to affect JOLs. The idea is that for one to base judgments in beliefs of how a variable affects memory, one must first consider that variable. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants studied a list of high- and low-frequency words, made immediate JOLs, and answered questions aimed at identifying the cues used to make those JOLs. The results showed that identifying word frequency as a cue was not necessary for effects on JOLs to occur, suggesting that some participants could not have used beliefs about how word frequency affects memory when making JOLs. In Experiment 3, we measured processing fluency of high- and low-frequency words through a lexical decision task. Participants identified high-frequency words quicker than low-frequency words, suggesting the former to be more fluently processed. In Experiment 4, we explored if response times in a lexical decision task mediated the effect of word frequency on JOLs. Results showed a significant mediation of 8-13%, depending on the analysis technique. We argue that theory-driven processes do not fully account for word frequency effects on JOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A common measure of memory monitoring——judgments of learning (JOLs)——has recently been shown to have reactive effects on learning. When participants study a list of related and unrelated word pairs, they recall more related than unrelated pairs. This relatedness effect is larger when people make JOLs than when they do not make them. Evidence is mixed concerning whether this increased relatedness effect arises because JOLs help memory for related pairs, hurt it for unrelated pairs, or do both. In three experiments, we investigated (1) the nature of the increased relatedness effect (i.e., does it arise from positive reactivity for related pairs, negative reactivity for unrelated pairs, or both?) and (2) the mechanisms underlying the effect. Participants studied cue-target word pairs and either did (or did not) make immediate JOLs and then completed a cued-recall test. When participants studied a mixed list consisting of related and unrelated pairs, the increased relatedness effect was largely driven by positive reactivity. When participants studied pure lists consisting solely of related or unrelated word pairs (Experiment 2 only), the increased relatedness effect was minimized. These and other findings suggest that making JOLs helps learning more than hurts it, and that this reactive effect partly occurs because making JOLs changes people’s learning goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about what exactly differentiates metacognitive processes from ordinary cognitive processes particularly early in development, and the underlying developmental aspects. To examine the time-course of metacognition, the present study investigated the neural underpinnings of judgments of learning (JoLs) and compared them with control judgments, using an event-related potentials (ERP) design. During ERP recording, children age seven to eight were presented with cue-target picture pairs and instructed to learn these pairs. After each pair, they either had to make a JoL (assess the likelihood of remembering the target when only presented with the cue) or a colour judgment (indicate whether the colour yellow had been present in one of the two pictures presented earlier). Results revealed a late slow wave divergence maximal pronounced from 550 ms to 950 ms post-stimulus that distinguished between JOLs and colour judgments. Over centro-parietal areas, JoLs showed a more negative going slow wave compared to the colour judgments, and this pattern was independent of performance. The results are in support of theories that assume a distinction between metacognitive and cognitive processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presenting information in a perceptually degraded format sometimes enhances learning outcomes. However, earlier studies in which words were presented in large or small fonts in a paradigm that also involved item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs) consistently yielded no mnemonic benefit of small fonts. Can small font size enhance memory under hitherto unexamined conditions? A series of 11 experiments was conducted to examine systematically the effect of font size on memory for words and whether it depends on the strength of the font size manipulation, whether JOLs are solicited, the format of the test, and study time. The resulting data were meta-analyzed. Results yielded a u-shape relationship between font size and memory. Compared to intermediate fonts, there was a memory advantage for words presented in large fonts but also for words presented in very small fonts. However, the requirement to provide a JOL moderated the benefit of the very small font, which was eliminated when JOLs were solicited. Test format and study time did not moderate the effect of font size on memory. JOLs were insensitive to the u-shape relationship and consistently increased with font size. These findings provide support for the notion that perceptually degraded materials can enhance learning outcomes, but also highlight the importance of systematic investigation of moderators. The results shed new light on the inconsistent effects of manipulations of perceptual degradation on learning outcomes observed in earlier studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mastering study materials often requires repeated learning. However, the strategy of restudying the same materials has been criticized for not giving sufficient opportunity for retrieval in the form of self-assessments that are known to benefit not only learning but also metacognitive monitoring of the learning process. Here we focus on the contribution of spontaneous retrieval in the form of reminding to repeated learning that does not require explicit self-assessments. By manipulating environmental context in which restudy takes place, we demonstrate that repeated learning in the same environmental context increases the incidence of reminding, augmenting learning and influencing metacognitive monitoring (as tapped into by immediate judgments of learning). At the same time, we demonstrate that explicit self-assessments – delayed judgments of learning – can be led astray by non-diagnostic spurious familiarity of environmental context which accompanies these assessments. The study thus reveals the positive effects of environmental context on restudy, while highlighting possible inaccuracies of metacognitive processes involved in explicit self-assessments of learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is much evidence that metacognitive judgments, such as people’s predictions of their future memory performance (judgments of learning, JOLs), are inferences based on cues and heuristics. However, relatively little is known about whether and when people integrate multiple cues in one metacognitive judgment or focus on a single cue without integrating further information. The current set of experiments systematically addressed whether and to what degree people integrate multiple extrinsic and intrinsic cues in JOLs. Experiment 1 varied two cues: number of study presentations (1 vs. 2) and font size (18 point vs. 48 point). Results revealed that people integrated both cues in their JOLs. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the two word characteristics concreteness (abstract vs. concrete) and emotionality (neutral vs. emotional) were integrated in JOLs. Experiment 3 showed that people integrated all four cues in their JOLs when manipulated simultaneously. Finally, Experiment 4 confirmed integration of three cues that varied on a continuum rather than in two easily distinguishable levels. These results demonstrate that people have a remarkable capacity to integrate multiple cues in metacognitive judgments. In addition, our findings render an explanation of cue effects on JOLs in terms of demand characteristics implausible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous results suggest that the monitoring of one’s own performance during self-regulated learning is mediated by self-agency attributions and that these attributions can be influenced by poststudy effort-framing instructions. These results pose a challenge to the study of issues of self-agency in metacognition when the objects of self-regulation are mental operations rather than motor actions that have observable outcomes. When participants studied items in Experiment 1 under time pressure, they invested greater study effort in the easier items in the list. However, the effects of effort framing were the same as when learners typically invest more study effort in the more difficult items: Judgments of learning (JOLs) decreased with effort when instructions biased the attribution of effort to nonagentic sources but increased when they biased attribution to agentic sources. However, the effects of effort framing were constrained by parameters of the study task: Interitem differences in difficulty constrained the attribution of effort to agentic regulation (Experiment 2) whereas interitem differences in the incentive for recall constrained the attribution of effort to nonagentic sources (Experiment 3). The results suggest that the regulation and attribution of effort during self-regulated learning occur within a module that is dissociated from the learner’s superordinate agenda but is sensitive to parameters of the task. A model specifies the stage at which effort framing affects the effort-JOL relationship by biasing the attribution of effort to agentic or nonagentic sources. The potentialities that exist in metacognition for the investigation of issues of self-agency are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]