Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judgment of learning reactivity reflects enhanced relational encoding on cued-recall but not recognition tests

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are often reactive on memory for cue-target pairs. This pattern, however, is moderated by relatedness, as related but not unrelated pairs often show a memorial benefit compared to a no-JOL control group. Based on Soderstrom et al.’s, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41, 553-558, (2015) cue-strengthening account, JOLs direct attention towards intrinsic cues which aid retrieval. However, reactivity may also reflect specific processing of cue-target associations, which is applied whenever semantic associations are available, even when these associations are indirect. The present study tested this possibility using mediated associates (e.g., lion – stripes) which are directly unrelated to each other and indirectly related through a non-presented mediator (e.g., tiger). Based on a cue-strengthening account, no reactivity would be expected for mediated associates. Alternatively, if cue strengthening primarily reflects enhanced processing of cue-target relations, memory benefits would be expected whenever pairs are semantically related, even if pairs are indirectly related through mediators. Overall, reactivity extended to mediated associates in cued-recall (Experiment 1) and recognition tests (Experiments 2 and 3). Interestingly, JOL reactivity was consistently found on recognition of non-mediated unrelated pairs (Experiments 2–4). Thus, positive reactivity on related pairs for cued-recall testing likely reflects increased activation of cue-target associations. However, because recognition is based on familiarity cues, reactivity occurs globally for all pair types, regardless of cue-target relations.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Study materials, data files, and R code used for analyses have been made available via OSF (https://osf.io/mfbnz/).

References

  • Balota, D. A., & Lorch, R. F. (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 336–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieman-Copland, S., & Charness, N. (1994). Memory knowledge and memory monitoring in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 9(2), 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, M., & Brainerd, C. J. (2023). Changed-goal or cue-strengthening? Examining the reactivity of judgments of learning with the dual-retrieval model. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 183–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Double, K. S., Birney, D. P., & Walker, S. A. (2018). A meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgments of learning. Memory, 26(6), 741–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), 1180–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Bradford Books/ MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, M. & Kornell, N. (2015). Collector [Computer software]. Retrieved April 3rd, 2020 from https://github.com/gikeymarica/Collector

  • Halamish, V. (2018). Can very small font size enhance memory? Memory & Cognition, 46, 979–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halamish, V., & Undorf, M. (2023). Why do judgments of learning modify memory? Evidence from identical pairs and relatedness judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(4), 547–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanczakowski, M., Zawadzka, K., Pasek, T., & Higham, P. A. (2013). Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 27, 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, M. J., Di Mauro, A., Coane, J. H., & O'Brien, L. M. (2021). Mapping the time course of semantic activation in mediated false memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 483-496.

  • Huff, M. J., & Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The effects of mediated word lists on false recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 39, 941–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janes, J. L., Rivers, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2018). The influence of making judgments of learning on memory performance: Positive, negative, or both? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2356–2364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. L. (2010). Pure mediated priming: A retrospective semantic matching model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makowski, D. (2018). The psycho package: An efficient and publishing-oriented workflow for psychological science. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(22), 470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N. P., & Huff, M. J. (2021). The deceptive nature of associative word pairs: The effects of associative direction on judgments of learning. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(4), 1757–1775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N. P., & Huff, M. J. (2022). Reactivity from judgments of learning is not only due to memory forecasting: Evidence from associative memory and frequency judgments. Metacognition and Learning, 17, 589–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N. P., & Huff, M. J. (2023). Is discriminability a requirement for reactivity? Comparing the effects of mixed vs. pure list presentations on judgment of learning reactivity. Memory & Cognition, 51(5), 1198–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N. P., Huff, M. J., & Buchanan, E. M. (2022). The lrd package: An R package and Shiny application for processing lexical data. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 2001–2024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchum, A. L., Kelley, C. M., & Fox, M. C. (2016). When asking the question changes the ultimate answer: Metamemory judgments change memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(2), 200–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, M. L., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluence to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 378–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. J., Rhodes, M. G., & Hausman, H. E. (2020). Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test. Memory & Cognition, 48, 745-758.

  • Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “Delayed-JOL Effect.” Psychological Science, 2(4), 267–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. American Psychologist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Judgments of learning. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers, M. L., Janes, J. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Investigating memory reactivity with a within-participant manipulation of judgments of learning: Support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis. Memory, 29(10), 1342–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers, M. L., Janes, J. L., Dunlosky, J., Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2023). Exploring the role of attentional reorienting in the reactive effects of judgments of learning on memory performance. Journal of Intelligence, 11(8), 164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Janes, J. L., Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2023). Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but no letter-cued items. Memory & Cognition, 51, 1547–1561.

  • Schäfer, F. & Undorf, M. (2023). On the educational relevance of immediate judgment of learning reactivity: No effects of predicting one’s memory for general knowledge facts. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-61646-001 

  • Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (2017). Metamemory: An update of critical findings. In J. H. Bryne (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (2nd ed., pp. 423–432). Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 553–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers, E. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not Applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd, Wichita Falls, TX, USA

    Nicholas P. Maxwell

  2. The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

    Mark J. Huff

Authors
  1. Nicholas P. Maxwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark J. Huff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NPM contributed to conceptualization, experiment programming, data analysis, and primary writing. MJH contributed to conceptualization and writing edits.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas P. Maxwell.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The reported studies were approved by The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board (Protocol #IRB-19–429) and the Institutional Review Board at Midwestern State University (Protocol #22101701). Informed consent was obtained for all individuals who participated in this series of studies. None of the experiments were pre-registered.

Competing interests

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Table 1 Summary statistics for cue and target concreteness, length, and frequency as a function of pair type
Full size table
Table 2 Associative strength summary statistics for forward associates in each study list
Full size table
Table 3 Associative strength summary statistics for mediated associates in each study list
Full size table
Table 4 Comparisons of mean recall percentages for each encoding group as a function of pair type in Experiment 1
Full size table
Table 5 Comparisons of mean hit rates for each encoding group as a function of pair type in Experiments 2–4
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maxwell, N.P., Huff, M.J. Judgment of learning reactivity reflects enhanced relational encoding on cued-recall but not recognition tests. Metacognition Learning 19, 189–213 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09369-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09369-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation