Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1255–1262 | Cite as

Metacognitive effects of initial question difficulty on subsequent memory performance

  • Ainat PanskyEmail author
  • Morris Goldsmith
Brief Report


In two experiments, we examined whether relative retrieval fluency (the relative ease or difficulty of answering questions from memory) would be translated, via metacognitive monitoring and control processes, into an overt effect on the controlled behavior—that is, the decision whether to answer a question or abstain. Before answering a target set of multiple-choice general-knowledge questions (intermediate-difficulty questions in Exp. 1, deceptive questions in Exp. 2), the participants first answered either a set of difficult questions or a set of easy questions. For each question, they provided a forced-report answer, followed by a subjective assessment of the likelihood that their answer was correct (confidence) and by a free-report control decision—whether or not to report the answer for a potential monetary bonus (or penalty). The participants’ ability to answer the target questions (forced-report proportion correct) was unaffected by the initial question difficulty. However, a predicted metacognitive contrast effect was observed: When the target questions were preceded by a set of difficult rather than easy questions, the participants were more confident in their answers to the target questions, and hence were more likely to report them, thus increasing the quantity of freely reported correct information. The option of free report was more beneficial after initial question difficulty than after initial question ease, in terms of both the gain in accuracy (Exp. 2) and a smaller cost in quantity (Exps. 1 and 2). These results demonstrate that changes in subjective experience can influence metacognitive monitoring and control, thereby affecting free-report memory performance independently of forced-report performance.


Relative fluency Metacognition Monitoring and control Confidence Free-report memory testing 


Author note

This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework of German–Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP).


  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodner, G. E., & Richardson-Champion, D. D. L. (2007). Remembering is in the details: Effects of test-list context on memory for an event. Memory, 15, 718–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budescu, D., & Bar-Hillel, M. (1993). To guess or not to guess: A decision-theoretic view of formula scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costermans, J., Lories, G., & Ansay, C. (1992). Confidence level and feeling of knowing in question answering: The weight of inferential processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 142–150.Google Scholar
  7. Damisch, L., Mussweiler, T., & Plessner, H. (2006). Olympic medals as fruits of comparison? Assimilation and contrast in sequential performance judgements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 166–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Finn, B. (2010). Ending on a high note: Adding a better end to effortful study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1548–1553.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552–564.Google Scholar
  10. Goldsmith, M. (2011). Quantity-accuracy profiles or type-2 signal detection measures? Similar methods toward a common goal. In P. A. Higham & J. P. Leboe (Eds.), Constructions of remembering and metacognition: Essays in honor of Bruce Whittlesea (pp. 128–136). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Goldsmith, M., & Koriat, A. (2008). The strategic regulation of memory accuracy and informativeness. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 48, pp. 1–60). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2008). It’s the difference that counts: Expectancy/experience discrepancy moderates the use of ease of retrieval in attitude judgments. Social Cognition, 26, 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higham, P. A. (2007). No special K! A signal detection framework for the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Higham, P. A. (2011). Accuracy discrimination and type-2 signal detection theory: Clarifications, extensions, and an analysis of bias. In P. A. Higham & J. P. Leboe (Eds.), Constructions of remembering and metacognition: Essays in honor of Bruce Whittlesea (pp. 109–127). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelley, C. M., & Rhodes, M. G. (2002). Making sense and nonsense of experience: Attributions in memory and judgment. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 41, pp. 293–320). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Koriat, A. (1995). Dissociating knowing and the feeling of knowing: Further evidence for the accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490–517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCabe, D. P., & Balota, D. A. (2007). Context effects on remembering and knowing: The expectancy heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 536–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Thurstone, L. L. (1919). A scoring method for mental tests. Psychological Bulletin, 16, 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weinstein, Y., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2010). Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it. Memory & Cognition, 38, 366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weinstein, Y., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2012). The effect of question order on evaluations of test performance: How does the bias evolve? Memory & Cognition, 40, 727–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations