Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 384–397 | Cite as

The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring

  • Chunliang Yang
  • Bukuan Sun
  • David R. Shanks
Article

Abstract

Judgments about future memory performance (metamemory judgments) are known to be susceptible to illusions and bias. Here we asked whether metamemory judgments are affected, like many other forms of judgment, by numerical anchors. Experiment 1 confirmed previous research showing an effect of informative anchors (e.g., past peer performance) on metamemory monitoring. In four further experiments, we then explored the effects of uninformative anchors. All of the experiments obtained significant anchoring effects on metamemory monitoring; in contrast, the anchors had no effect on recall itself. We also explored the anchoring effect on metamemory control (restudy choices) in Experiment 4. The results suggested that anchors can affect metamemory monitoring, which in turn affects metamemory control. The present research reveals that informative and, more importantly, uninformative numbers that have no influence on recall itself can bias metamemory judgments. On the basis of the current theoretical understanding of the anchoring effect and metamemory monitoring, these results offer insight into the processes that trigger metacognitive biases.

Keywords

Anchoring Informative Uninformative Metamemory monitoring Metamemory control 

References

  1. Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Schwartz, J. A., & Bergus, G. R. (2007). The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Medical Decision Making, 27, 203–211.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06298595 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll, M., Nelson, T. O., & Kirwan, A. (1997). Tradeoff of semantic relatedness and degree of overlearning: Differential effects on metamemory and on long-term retention. Acta Psychologica, 95, 239–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(96)00040-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, S. R., Petrusic, W. M., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2009). Anchoring effects in the judgment of confidence: Semantic or numeric priming? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 297–307.  https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.2.297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115–153.  https://doi.org/10.1006/OBHD.1999.2841 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241–251.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 1180–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1180 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. England, B. D., & Serra, M. J. (2012). The contributions of anchoring and past-test performance to the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 715–722.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0237-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Finn, B. (2008). Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Memory & Cognition, 36, 813–821.  https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.4.813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 238–244.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.238 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederick, S. W., & Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 124–133.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657–669.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 208–216.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022263 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu, X., Li, T., Zheng, J., Su, N., Liu, Z., & Luo, L. (2015). How much do metamemory beliefs contribute to the font-size effect in judgments of learning? PLoS ONE, 10, e0142351.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142351 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu, X., Liu, Z., Li, T., & Luo, L. (2016). Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning. Memory, 24, 383–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1009470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jia, X., Li, P., Li, X., Zhang, Y., Cao, W., Cao, L., & Li, W. (2015). The effect of word frequency on judgments of learning: Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01995
  20. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma’ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 147–162.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008a). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008b). Optimising self-regulated study: The benefits—and costs—of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701763899 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179.  https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.1.174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mueller, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 245–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2016). The effect of identical word pairs on people’s metamemory judgments: What are the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 781–799.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1058404 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mueller, M. L., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 378–384.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 267–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00147.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms [Database]. Available from http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
  33. Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Prime numbers: Anchoring and its implications for theories of behavior priming. Social Cognition, 32, 88–108.  https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 550–554.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scheck, P., Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 71–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silver, N. C., & Dunlap, W. P. (1987). Averaging correlation coefficients: Should Fisher’s z transformation be used? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 146–148.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 681–690.  https://doi.org/10.1086/425103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slovic, P. (1967). The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon perceived risk of a gamble. Psychonomic Science, 9, 223–224.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 99–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 657–662.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000189 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Susser, J. A., Panitz, J., Buchin, Z., & Mulligan, N. W. (2017). The motoric fluency effect on metamemory. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 116–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Self-regulated learning of a natural category: Do people interleave or block exemplars during study? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 356–363.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0319-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thorsteinson, T. J., Breier, J., Atwell, A., Hamilton, C., & Privette, M. (2008). Anchoring effects on performance judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 29–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0479-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Overschelde, J. P., & Nelson, T. O. (2006). Delayed judgments of learning cause both a decrease in absolute accuracy (calibration) and an increase in relative accuracy (resolution). Memory & Cognition, 34, 1527–1538.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vuorre, M., & Bolger, N. (2017). Within-subject mediation analysis for experimental data in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://osf.io/s48e2
  52. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387–402.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2017). The concreteness effect on judgments of learning: Evaluating the contributions of fluency and beliefs. Memory & Cognition, 45, 639–650.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0681-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 918–933.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang, C., Huang, S. T., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  56. Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017a). The forward testing effect on self-regulated study time allocation and metamemory monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 263–277.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000122 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017b). Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1073–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000363 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, C., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). The forward testing effect: Interim testing enhances inductive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000449
  59. Zhao, Q. (2012). Effects of accuracy motivation and anchoring on metacomprehension judgment and accuracy. Journal of General Psychology, 139, 155–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.680523 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2011). Anchoring effects on prospective and retrospective metacomprehension judgments as a function of peer performance information. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9065-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunliang Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bukuan Sun
    • 3
  • David R. Shanks
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Division of Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.School of EducationFuqing Branch of Fujian Normal UniversityFuqingChina

Personalised recommendations