Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metacomprehension effects situated within an anchoring and adjustment framework

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Low accuracy levels are often obtained when readers are asked to predict test performance over reading materials. Three investigations further explore the information readers use to make predictions during metacomprehension. Our results show that readers’ estimates are influenced by factors such as their initial impression of the reading task, based in part on their perceptions surrounding text genre and test item type. To explain these and other published results, a new framework for investigating metacomprehension using Tversky and Kahneman’s (Science, 185:1124–1131, 1974) anchoring and adjustment heuristic as a guide is proposed. We argue that readers anchor comprehension test performance on factors such as self-perceptions of reading ability and/or perceptions of the reading task and then insufficiently adjust their predictions to reflect the demands of the specific reading task at hand such as text difficulty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Baker, J. M. C., Rawson, K. A., & Hertzog, C. (2006). Does aging influence people’s metacomprehension? Effects of processing ease on judgments of text learning. Psychology and Aging, 21, 390–400. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551–565. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 447–460. doi:10.1177/0146167203261889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 199–212. doi:10.1002/bdm.495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311–318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive Development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15, 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 116, 119–136. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.2.119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity hypothesis of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaakinen, J. K., Hyona, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 447–457. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm, T. (2002). Predictive inference generation as a function of working memory capacity and casual text constraints. Discourse Processes, 34(3), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm, T., & Zhao, Q. (2008). The impact of strategy instruction and timing of estimates on low and high working-memory capacity readers’ absolute monitoring accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 135–143. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2005.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm, T., Cong, X., & Zhao, Q. (2008). Differences in Low and High Working-Memory Capacity Readers’ Cognitive and Metacognitive Processing Patterns as a Function of Reading for Different Purposes. Reading Psychology, 29, 61–85. doi:10.1080/02702710701568587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H. (1998). Test prediction over text materials. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992). The basis of test predictions for text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 116–126. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.1.116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A. E., & Zacchilli, T. L. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 723–731. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, W. S., & Maki, R. H. (2002). Multimedia comprehension skill predicts differential outcomes of web-based lecture courses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8, 85–98. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 851–864. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D., Lin-Agler, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2005). A source of metacomprehension inaccuracy. Reading Psychology, 26, 251–265. doi:10.1080/02702710590962578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. C. (1990). Retrieval processes underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 223–232. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.2.223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 69–80. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheck, P., Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 71–79. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheck, P., & Nelson, T. O. (2005). Lack of pervasiveness of the underconfidence-with-practice effect: Boundary conditions and an explanation via anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 134, 124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472. doi:10.1023/A:1003196224280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129–160. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 65–73. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.95.1.66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P. W., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver III, C. A., & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23, 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B. W. (2005). Memory for narrative and expository text: Independent influences semantic associations and text organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 359–364. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 191–206. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/104855

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Q., Linderholm, T., & Therriault, D. (2006). Absolute metacomprehension accuracy: The effects of cue-utilization instruction and working-memory capacity. Poster session presented at the 2006 American Psychological Association Convention, New Orleans, LA, August

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Florida, 1403 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117047, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7047, USA

    Tracy Linderholm, Qin Zhao, David J. Therriault & Kristi Cordell-McNulty

Authors
  1. Tracy Linderholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David J. Therriault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristi Cordell-McNulty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracy Linderholm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Linderholm, T., Zhao, Q., Therriault, D.J. et al. Metacomprehension effects situated within an anchoring and adjustment framework. Metacognition Learning 3, 175–188 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9025-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9025-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation