Undorf, Monika ; Bröder, Arndt (2020)
Cue integration in metamemory judgements is strategic.
In: Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73 (4)
doi: 10.1177/1747021819882308
Artikel, Bibliographie
Kurzbeschreibung (Abstract)
People base judgements about their own memory processes on probabilistic cues such as the characteristics of study materials and study conditions. While research has largely focused on how single cues affect metamemory judgements, a recent study by Undorf, Söllner, and Bröder found that multiple cues affected people's predictions of their future memory performance (judgements of learning, JOLs). The present research tested whether this finding was indeed due to strategic integration of multiple cues in JOLs or, alternatively, resulted from people's reliance on a single unified feeling of ease. In Experiments 1 and 2, we simultaneously varied concreteness and emotionality of word pairs and solicited (a) pre-study JOLs that could be based only on the manipulated cues and (b) immediate JOLs that could be based both on the manipulated cues and on a feeling of ease. The results revealed similar amounts of cue integration in pre-study JOLs and immediate JOLs, regardless of whether cues varied in two easily distinguishable levels (Experiment 1) or on a continuum (Experiment 2). This suggested that people strategically integrated multiple cues in their immediate JOLs. Experiment 3 provided further evidence for this conclusion by showing that false explicit information about cue values affected immediate JOLs over and above actual cue values. Hence, we conclude that cue integration in JOLs involves strategic processes.
Typ des Eintrags: | Artikel |
---|---|
Erschienen: | 2020 |
Autor(en): | Undorf, Monika ; Bröder, Arndt |
Art des Eintrags: | Bibliographie |
Titel: | Cue integration in metamemory judgements is strategic |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Publikationsjahr: | April 2020 |
Titel der Zeitschrift, Zeitung oder Schriftenreihe: | Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology |
Jahrgang/Volume einer Zeitschrift: | 73 |
(Heft-)Nummer: | 4 |
DOI: | 10.1177/1747021819882308 |
URL / URN: | http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1747021819882308 |
Kurzbeschreibung (Abstract): | People base judgements about their own memory processes on probabilistic cues such as the characteristics of study materials and study conditions. While research has largely focused on how single cues affect metamemory judgements, a recent study by Undorf, Söllner, and Bröder found that multiple cues affected people's predictions of their future memory performance (judgements of learning, JOLs). The present research tested whether this finding was indeed due to strategic integration of multiple cues in JOLs or, alternatively, resulted from people's reliance on a single unified feeling of ease. In Experiments 1 and 2, we simultaneously varied concreteness and emotionality of word pairs and solicited (a) pre-study JOLs that could be based only on the manipulated cues and (b) immediate JOLs that could be based both on the manipulated cues and on a feeling of ease. The results revealed similar amounts of cue integration in pre-study JOLs and immediate JOLs, regardless of whether cues varied in two easily distinguishable levels (Experiment 1) or on a continuum (Experiment 2). This suggested that people strategically integrated multiple cues in their immediate JOLs. Experiment 3 provided further evidence for this conclusion by showing that false explicit information about cue values affected immediate JOLs over and above actual cue values. Hence, we conclude that cue integration in JOLs involves strategic processes. |
Freie Schlagworte: | cue integration, fluency, judgments of learning, metamemory |
Fachbereich(e)/-gebiet(e): | 03 Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften 03 Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften > Institut für Psychologie 03 Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften > Institut für Psychologie > Angewandte Kognitionspsychologie |
Hinterlegungsdatum: | 17 Mai 2024 06:53 |
Letzte Änderung: | 17 Mai 2024 06:53 |
PPN: | |
Export: | |
Suche nach Titel in: | TUfind oder in Google |
![]() |
Frage zum Eintrag |
Optionen (nur für Redakteure)
![]() |
Redaktionelle Details anzeigen |