Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 412–419 | Cite as

Intensifying the intensity illusion in judgments of learning: Modality and cue combinations

  • Zehra F. PeynircioğluEmail author
  • Joshua R. Tatz
Article
  • 131 Downloads

Abstract

We showed that judgments of learning (JOLs) were not affected by presentation modality in a list-learning task, although the typical font-size and loudness illusions emerged in that large-font visual presentations and loud auditory presentations elicited higher JOLs than their less intense counterparts. Further, when items were presented in both modalities simultaneously, large-font/quiet and small-font/loud items received similar JOLs (and were recalled similarly). Most importantly, when the intensity manipulation was compounded across modalities, the magnitude of the illusion increased beyond that observed in a single modality, showing the influence of combining cues. Whereas recall was still the same, large-font/loud items received higher JOLs than either small-font/loud items or large-font/quiet items, and not-intense items received very low JOLs. These differences emerged only when all conditions were presented within a single list and not in a between-subjects design, underscoring the importance of comparative judgments.

Keywords

Metamemory Memory JOL Modality Font size Loudness 

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 41, 897–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigelow, J., & Poremba, A. (2014). Achilles’ ear? Inferior human short-term and recognition memory in the auditory modality. PLOS ONE, 9(2), e89914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, M., & Korukina, S. (1999). The effect of text coherence and modality on metamemory judgements. Memory, 7(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castel, A. D. (2008). Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: The utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusions in immediate memory. British Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Green, A. (1990). Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krätzig, G. P., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Legge, G. E., & Bigelow, C. A. (2011). Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mulligan, N. W., Besken, M., & Peterson, D. (2010). Remember-know and source memory instructions can qualitatively change old-new recognition accuracy: The modality-match effect in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 558–566.Google Scholar
  17. Mulligan, N. W., & Osborn, K. (2009). The modality-match effect in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 564–571.Google Scholar
  18. Peynircioğlu, Z. F., Brandler, B. J., Hohman, T. J., & Knutson, N. (2014). Metacognitive judgments in music performance. Psychology of Music, 42(5), 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rabinovitz, B. E., & Peynircioğlu, Z. F. (2011). Feeling-of-knowing for songs and instrumental music. Acta Psychologica, 138(1), 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 550–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ross, L. A., Saint-Amour, D., Leavitt, V. M., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. (2006). Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. Cerebral Cortex, 17(5), 1147–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Susser, J. A., Jin, A., & Mulligan, N. W. (2016). Identity priming consistently affects perceptual fluency but only affects metamemory when primes are obvious. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(4), 657–662.Google Scholar
  24. Susser, J. A., Mulligan, N. W., & Besken, M. (2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41(7), 1000–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watkins, M. J., & Peynircioǧlu, Z. F. (1983). Interaction between presentation modality and recall order in memory span. The American Journal of Psychology, 96(3), 315–322.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1422314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1980). Echoic memory and voice quality: Recency recall is not enhanced by varying presentation voice. Memory & Cognition, 8(1), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Undorf, M., Söllner, A., & Bröder, A. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 46(4), 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Undorf, M., Zimdahl, M. F., & Bernstein, D. M. (2017). Perceptual fluency contributes to effects of stimulus size on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang, C., Huang, T. S. T., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations