Memory & Cognition

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 370–383 | Cite as

Agency attributions of mental effort during self-regulated learning

Article

Abstract

Previous results suggest that the monitoring of one’s own performance during self-regulated learning is mediated by self-agency attributions and that these attributions can be influenced by poststudy effort-framing instructions. These results pose a challenge to the study of issues of self-agency in metacognition when the objects of self-regulation are mental operations rather than motor actions that have observable outcomes. When participants studied items in Experiment 1 under time pressure, they invested greater study effort in the easier items in the list. However, the effects of effort framing were the same as when learners typically invest more study effort in the more difficult items: Judgments of learning (JOLs) decreased with effort when instructions biased the attribution of effort to nonagentic sources but increased when they biased attribution to agentic sources. However, the effects of effort framing were constrained by parameters of the study task: Interitem differences in difficulty constrained the attribution of effort to agentic regulation (Experiment 2) whereas interitem differences in the incentive for recall constrained the attribution of effort to nonagentic sources (Experiment 3). The results suggest that the regulation and attribution of effort during self-regulated learning occur within a module that is dissociated from the learner’s superordinate agenda but is sensitive to parameters of the task. A model specifies the stage at which effort framing affects the effort–JOL relationship by biasing the attribution of effort to agentic or nonagentic sources. The potentialities that exist in metacognition for the investigation of issues of self-agency are discussed.

Keywords

Metacognition Agency attribution Self-regulated learning Judgments of learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this article was supported by the Max Wertheimer Minerva Center for Cognitive Processes and Human Performance at the University of Haifa. I am grateful to Miriam Gil for her help in the analyses. Tamar Jermans, Mor Peled, and Shai Raz helped in the collection of the data. I also thank Etti Levran (Merkine) for her help in copyediting.

References

  1. Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition, 41, 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 432–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayne, T. J., & Levy, N. (2006). The feeling of doing: Deconstructing the phenomenology of agency. In N. Sebanz & W. Prinz (Eds.), Disorders of volition (pp. 49–68). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Castel, A. D., Murayama, K., Friedman, M. C., McGillivray, S., & Link, I. (2013). Selecting valuable information to remember: Age-related differences and similarities in self-regulated learning. Psychology and Aging, 28, 232–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambon, V., Sidarus, N., & Haggard, P. (2014). From action intentions to action effects: How does the sense of agency come about? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 320.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Aging and deficits in associative memory: What is the role of strategy use? Psychology and Aging, 13, 597–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32, 779–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiechter, J. L., Benjamin, A. S., & Unsworth, N. (2015). The metacognitive foundations of effective remembering. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory (pp. 62–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frith, C. (2013). The psychology of volition. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 289–299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Frith, C. D., Blakemore, S., & Wolpert, D. (2000). Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 355, 1771–1788.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Haggard, P., & Eitam, B. (Eds.). (2015). The sense of agency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Haggard, P., & Tsakiris, M. (2009). The experience of agency: Feelings, judgments, and responsibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 242–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koriat, A. (2008). Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2014). The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 386–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 646–653.Google Scholar
  20. Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Judgments of learning depend on how learners interpret study effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1624–1637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). A stability bias in human memory: Overestimating remembering and underestimating learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 449–468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17, 493–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Metcalfe, J. (2013). “Knowing” that the self is the agent. In J. Metcalfe & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Agency and joint attention (pp. 238–255). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metcalfe, J., & Greene, M. J. (2007). Metacognition of agency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muenks, K., Miele, D. B., & Wigfield, A. (2016). How students’ perceptions of the source of effort influence their ability evaluations of other students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 438–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676–686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pacherie, E. (2007). The sense of control and the sense of agency. Psyche, 13, 1–30.Google Scholar
  31. Pacherie, E. (2013). Sense of agency: Many facets, multiple sources. In J. Metcalfe & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Agency and joint attention (pp. 321–345). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Proust, J. (2013). The philosophy of metacognition: Mental agency and self-awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sato, A., & Yasuda, A. (2005). Illusion of sense of self-agency: Discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition, 94, 241–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Soderstrom, N. C., & McCabe, D. P. (2011). The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: Evidence for agenda-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1236–1242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.Google Scholar
  38. Undorf, M., & Ackerman, R. (2017). The puzzle of study time allocation for the most challenging items. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s1342
  39. Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2013). Separation of encoding fluency and item difficulty effects on judgements of learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2060–2072.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2015). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluency. Memory & Cognition, 43, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wegner, D. M. (2003). The mind’s best trick: How we experience conscious will. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 65–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of Information Processing and Decision MakingHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations