Abstract
In the experiments reported here, I replicate and extend recent results that reveal that judgments about the memorability of common and uncommon words differ qualitatively depending on whether they are made during study or elicited during a recognition test (Guttentag & Carroll, 1998). When assessing recognition ability for individual words, subjectspredict superior performance for common words, butpostdict better performance for uncommon words. This interaction suggests that subjects rely on different cues when making judgments during study than they do when making analogous judgments during the recognition test, and that the cues utilized during recognition lead judgments to be more accurate. The shift is then evident in later predictions: Subjects who make postdictions consequently correctlypredict superior recognition performance for uncommon words on a subsequent study list. When subjects are asked to make later predictions aboutrecall performance, however, having made postdictions on a test of recognition does not mislead subjects into predicting superior recall performance for uncommon words.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Begg, I., Duft, S., LaLonde, P., Melnick, R., &Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 610–632.
Benjamin, A. S., &Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.),Metacognition and implicit memory (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., &Hirshman, E. (1998). Predicting the future and reconstructing the past: A Bayesian characterization of the utility of subjective fluency.Acta Psychologica,98, 267–290.
Bieman-Copland, S., &Charness, N. (1994). Memory knowledge and memory monitoring in adulthood.Psychology & Aging,9, 287–302.
Brigham, M. C., &Pressley, M. (1988). Cognitive monitoring and strategy choice in younger and older adults.Psychology & Aging,3, 249–257.
Brown, J., Lewis, V. J., &Monk, A. F. (1977). Memorability, word frequency, and negative recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,29, 461–473.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., &Richman, B. (1973).Word frequency book. New York: American Heritage.
Devolder, P. A., Brigham, M. C., &Pressley, M. (1990). Memory performance awareness in younger and older adults.Psychology & Aging,5, 291–303.
Dunlosky, J., &Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience.Psychology & Aging,15, 462–474.
Gentner, D., &Collins, A. (1981). Studies of inference from lack of knowledge.Memory & Cognition,9, 434–443.
Ghodsian, D., Bjork, R. A., &Benjamin, A. S. (1997). Evaluating training during training: Obstacles and opportunities. In M.A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.),Training for twenty-first century technology: Applications of psychological research. (pp. 63–88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,13, 8–20.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 5–16.
Glanzer, M., &Bowles, N. (1976). Analysis of the word frequency effect in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 21–31.
Gorman, A. N. (1961). Recognition memory for names as a function of abstractness and frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology,61, 23–29.
Greene, R. L., &Thapar, A. (1994). Mirror effect in frequency discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 946–952.
Guttentag, R., &Carroll, D. (1998). Memorability judgments for high- and low-frequency words.Memory & Cognition,26, 951–958.
Hertzog, C., Saylor, L. L., Fleece, A. M., &Dixon, R. A. (1996). Metamemory and aging: Relations between predicted, actual, and perceived memory task performance.Aging & Cognition,1, 203–237.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 349–370.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., &Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue familiarity heuristic in metacognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 851–861.
Pressley, M., &Ghatala, E. S. (1989). Metacognitive benefits of taking a test for children and young adolescents.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,47, 430–450.
Pritchard, M. E., &Keenan, J. M. (1999). Memory monitoring in mock jurors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,5, 152–168.
Reder, L. M., &Ritter, F. E. (1992). What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 435–451.
Schulman, A. I. (1967). Word length and rarity in recognition memory.Psychonomic Science,9, 211–212.
Wixted, J. T. (1992). Subjective memorability and the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 681–690.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benjamin, A.S. Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition 31, 297–305 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194388
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194388