judgments of learning
Recently Published Documents

Despite the massive capacity of visual long-term memory, individuals do not successfully encode all visual information they wish to remember. This variability in encoding success has been traditionally ascribed to fluctuations in individuals’ cognitive states (e.g., sustained attention) and differences in memory encoding processes (e.g., depth of encoding). However, recent work has shown that a considerable amount of variability in encoding success stems from intrinsic stimulus properties that determine the ease of encoding across individuals. While researchers have identified several perceptual and semantic properties that contribute to this stimulus memorability phenomenon, much remains unknown, including whether individuals are aware of the memorability of stimuli they encounter. In the present study, we investigated whether individuals have conscious access to the memorability of real-world stimuli while forming self-referential judgments of learning (JOL) during explicit memory encoding (Experiments 1A-B) and when asked about the perceived memorability of a stimulus in the absence of attempted encoding (Experiments 2A-B). We found that both JOLs and perceived memorability estimates were consistent across individuals and reliably predicted stimulus memorability. However, this apparent access to the properties that define memorability was not comprehensive. Individuals unexpectedly remembered and forgot consistent sets of stimuli as well. Thus, our findings demonstrate that individuals have conscious access to some—but not all—aspects of stimulus memorability and that this access exists regardless of the present demands on stimulus encoding.

Distributed learning is often recommended as a general learning strategy, but previous research has established its benefits mainly for learning with repeated materials. In two experiments, we investigated distributed learning with complementary text materials. 77 (Experiment 1) and 130 (Experiment 2) seventh graders read two texts, massed vs. distributed, by 1 week (Experiment 1) or 15 min (Experiment 2). Learning outcomes were measured immediately and 1 week later and metacognitive judgments of learning were assessed. In Experiment 1, distributed learning was perceived as more difficult than massed learning. In both experiments, massed learning led to better outcomes immediately after learning but learning outcomes were lower after 1 week. No such decrease occurred for distributed learning, yielding similar outcomes for massed and distributed learning after 1 week. In sum, no benefits of distributed learning vs. massed learning were found, but distributed learning might lower the decrease in learning outcomes over time.

Predictions of one’s future memory performance – judgments of learning (JOLs) – are based on the cues that learners regard as diagnostic of memory performance. One of these cues is word frequency or how often words are experienced in the language. It is not clear, however, whether word frequency would affect JOLs when other cues are also available. The current study aims to close this gap by testing whether objective and subjective word frequency affect JOLs in the presence of font size as an additional cue. Across three experiments, participants studied words that varied in word frequency (Experiment 1: high and low objective frequency; Experiment 2: a whole continuum from high to low objective frequency; Experiment 3: high and low subjective and objective frequency) and were presented in a large (48pt) or a small (18pt) font size, made JOLs, and completed a free recall test. Results showed that people based their JOLs on both word frequency and font size. We conclude that word frequency is an important cue that affects metamemory even in multiple-cue situations.

Previous studies found that metamemory beliefs dominate the font size effect on judgments of learning (JOLs). However, few studies have investigated whether beliefs about font size contribute to the font size effect in circumstances of multiple cues. The current study aims to fill this gap. Experiment 1 adopted a 2 (font size: 70 pt vs. 9 pt) * 2 (word frequency (WF): high vs. low) within-subjects design. The results showed that beliefs about font size did not mediate the font size effect on JOLs when multiple cues (font size and WF) were simultaneously provided. Experiment 2 further explored whether WF moderates the contribution of beliefs about font size to the font size effect, in which a 2 (font size: 70 pt vs. 9 pt, as a within-subjects factor) * 2 (WF: high vs. low, as a between-subjects factor) mixed design was used. The results showed that the contribution of beliefs about font size to the font size effect was present in a pure list of low-frequency words, but absent in a pure list of high-frequency words. Lastly, a meta-analysis showed evidence supporting the proposal that the contribution of beliefs about font size to the font size effect on JOLs is moderated by WF. Even though numerous studies suggested beliefs about font size play a dominant role in the font size effect on JOLs, the current study provides new evidence suggesting that such contribution is conditional. Theoretical implications are discussed.