Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 159–174 | Cite as

Correcting experience-based judgments: the perseverance of subjective experience in the face of the correction of judgment

  • Ravit NussinsonEmail author
  • Asher Koriat
Article

Abstract

Many of our cognitive and metacognitive judgments are based on sheer subjective experience. Subjective experience, however, may be contaminated by irrelevant factors, resulting in biased judgments. Under certain conditions people exert a metacognitive correction process to remedy such biased judgments. In this study we examine the proposition that even after a judgment has been corrected to avoid the biasing effects on subjective experience, subjective experience itself remains biased. We asked participants to judge the difficulty of anagrams for others. When they were aware of having been exposed to the solutions of some of the anagrams, they corrected their difficulty judgments for these anagrams. Despite this correction, their speeded choices in a subsequent task disclosed their biased subjective experience that these anagrams were easier to solve. Implications for the study of metacognition and for the educational domain are discussed.

Keywords

Correction processes Experience-based judgments Metacognitive judgments Subjective experience 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted at the Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. We gratefully acknowledge support for this research by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework of German-Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP). We thank Limor Sheffer for her help in the analyses of the data.

References

  1. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Jr Wyer, & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A., & Ruppert, J. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43 (pp. 43–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 121, 446–458. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 127, 55–68. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bless, H., & Forgas, J. P. (2000). The message within: Toward a social psychology of subjective experiences. In H. Bless, & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 372–392). Lillington, North Carolina: Edwards Brothers.Google Scholar
  7. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1>1::AID-BDM333<3.0.CO;2-S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 814–834.Google Scholar
  11. Jacoby, L. L., Allan, L. G., Collins, J. C., & Larwill, L. K. (1988). Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 240–247. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 110, 306–340. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989a). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326–338. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989b). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger, & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 391–422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Toth, J. P. (1992). Unconscious influences revealed: Attention, awareness, and control. American Psychologist, 47, 802–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 118, 126–135. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.118.2.126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, T. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2001). Feature and conjunction errors in recognition memory: Evidence for dual-process theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 82–102. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelley, C. M. (1999). Subjective experience as basis of “objective” judgments: Effects of past experience on judgments of difficulty. In D. Gopher, & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 515–536). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157–175. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1–24. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koriat, A. (1998). Metamemory: The feeling of knowing and its vagaries. In M. Sabourin, F. Craik, & M. Robert (Eds.), Advances in psychological science (Vol. 2 (pp. 461–469). Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 149–171. doi: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 187–194. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1133–1145. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (1999). Processes underlying metacognitive judgments: Information-based and experience-based monitoring of one’s own knowledge. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 483–502). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Koriat, A., & Ma’ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 478–492. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135, 36–69. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., Bless, H., & Shaked, N. (2008). Information-based and experience-based metacognitive judgments: Evidence from subjective confidence. In J. Dunlosky, & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), A handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 117–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lindsay, D. S., & Kelley, C. M. (1996). Creating illusions of familiarity in a cued recall remember/know paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295–327. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marcel, A. J. (1993). Slippage in the unity of consciousness. In J. Wiley (Ed.), Experimental and theoretical studies of consciousness (pp. 168–186). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monahan, J. L., Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11, 462–466. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004a). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reber, R., Zimmermann, T. D., & Wurtz, P. (2004b). Judgments of duration, figure-ground contrast, and size for words and nonwords. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1105–1114.Google Scholar
  37. Rhodes, M. G., & Jacoby, L. L. (2007). Toward analyzing cognitive illusions: Past, present, and future. In J. S. Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger, III (pp. 379–393). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433–465). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahnemann (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stepper, S., & Strack, F. (1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 211–220. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strack, F. (1992). The different routes to social judgments: Experiential versus informational strategies. In L. L. Martin, & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 249–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strack, F., & Hannover, B. (1996). Awareness of influence as a precondition for implementing correctional goals. In P. M. Gollwitzer, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 579–596). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  46. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teachers’ word book of 30,000 words. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wänke, M., Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1995). The availability heuristic revisited: Experienced ease of retrieval in mundane frequency estimates. Acta Psychologica, 89, 83–90. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(93)E0072-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wegener, D., & Petty, R. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36–51. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235–1253. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1997). Production, evaluation and preservation of experiences: Constructive processing in remembering and performance tasks. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 37 (pp. 211–264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2002). False memory and the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: The prototype-familiarity illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 131, 96–115. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 716–732. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. S. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141–165. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. S. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 547–565. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. S. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0278–7393.27.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Witherspoon, D., & Allan, L. G. (1985). The effect of a prior presentation on temporal judgments in a perceptual identification task. Memory & Cognition, 13, 101–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of Information Processing and Decision MakingUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations