Judgment of learning reactivity reflects enhanced relational encoding on cued-recall but not recognition tests

被引:0
作者
Nicholas P. Maxwell
Mark J. Huff
机构
[1] Midwestern State University,Department of Psychology
[2] The University of Southern Mississippi,undefined
来源
Metacognition and Learning | 2024年 / 19卷
关键词
Judgments of Learning; Reactivity; Mediated Associates; Cued-Recall; Recognition;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Judgments of learning (JOLs) are often reactive on memory for cue-target pairs. This pattern, however, is moderated by relatedness, as related but not unrelated pairs often show a memorial benefit compared to a no-JOL control group. Based on Soderstrom et al.’s, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition41, 553-558, (2015) cue-strengthening account, JOLs direct attention towards intrinsic cues which aid retrieval. However, reactivity may also reflect specific processing of cue-target associations, which is applied whenever semantic associations are available, even when these associations are indirect. The present study tested this possibility using mediated associates (e.g., lion – stripes) which are directly unrelated to each other and indirectly related through a non-presented mediator (e.g., tiger). Based on a cue-strengthening account, no reactivity would be expected for mediated associates. Alternatively, if cue strengthening primarily reflects enhanced processing of cue-target relations, memory benefits would be expected whenever pairs are semantically related, even if pairs are indirectly related through mediators. Overall, reactivity extended to mediated associates in cued-recall (Experiment 1) and recognition tests (Experiments 2 and 3). Interestingly, JOL reactivity was consistently found on recognition of non-mediated unrelated pairs (Experiments 2–4). Thus, positive reactivity on related pairs for cued-recall testing likely reflects increased activation of cue-target associations. However, because recognition is based on familiarity cues, reactivity occurs globally for all pair types, regardless of cue-target relations.
引用
收藏
页码:189 / 213
页数:24
相关论文
共 87 条
[1]  
Balota DA(1986)Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12 336-345
[2]  
Lorch RF(2007)The English lexicon project Behavior Research Methods 39 445-459
[3]  
Balota DA(1994)Memory knowledge and memory monitoring in adulthood Psychology and Aging 9 287-302
[4]  
Yap MJ(2009)Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English Behavior Research Methods 41 977-990
[5]  
Hutchison KA(2023)Changed-goal or cue-strengthening? Examining the reactivity of judgments of learning with the dual-retrieval model Metacognition and Learning 18 183-217
[6]  
Cortese MJ(2018)A meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgments of learning Memory 26 741-750
[7]  
Kessler B(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
[8]  
Loftis B(1994)Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language 33 545-565
[9]  
Neely JH(2007)G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences Behavior Research Methods 39 175-191
[10]  
Nelson DL(2018)Can very small font size enhance memory? Memory & Cognition 46 979-993