The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience
Abstract
Researchers have argued for age deficits in learning about the effects of encoding strategies from task experience, partly on the basis of absolute accuracy of metacognitive judgments. However, these findings could be attributed to factors other than age differences in learning. Forty older and 40 younger adults participated in 2 study-test trials in which they studied paired associates with imagery or repetition, predicted recall for the items, attempted recall, and postdicted recall. Recall was greater after imagery than repetition, yet this effect was not fully reflected by predictions made on Trial 1. Although both older and younger adults accurately postdicted recall from Trial 1, absolute accuracy of the predictions made on Trial 2 showed little improvement. By contrast, both age groups demonstrated increases in between-person correlations of predictions with recall, which is inconsistent with age deficits in knowledge updating. Thus, both older and younger adults had updated knowledge about the relative effects of the strategies, but such updating was not evident in the absolute accuracy of the predictions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Testing experience can act as a practical intervention to calibrate metacognition.
“Previous studies have demonstrated that testing experience can act as a practical intervention to calibrate metacognition, because test performance provides diagnostic feedback to calibrate metacognitive judgments and to update metacognitive beliefs”
From When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning (2022) · cites this paper as Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2000
Citations
Cites
Studying as Self-Regulated Learning
(1998) · Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice · doi:10.4324/9781410602350-19 · Cited by 1,589
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The aging decision maker: Cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies.
Mata, R., Schooler, L. J., & Rieskamp, J. (2007) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.796 · Cited by 366
Aging and self-regulated language processing.
Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Miller, L. M. S., & Hertzog, C. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.582 · Cited by 190
Self-citationWahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y · Cited by 172
Self-citationMetacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval
Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0274-5 · Cited by 118
Jopp, D., & Hertzog, C. (2007) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.811 · Cited by 106
Self-citationLogan, J. M., Castel, A. D., Haber, S., & Viehman, E. J. (2012) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-012-9090-3 · Cited by 103
Aging, Encoding Fluency, and Metacognitive Monitoring
Emanuel Robinson, A., Hertzog, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2006) · Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825580600572983 · Cited by 51
Self-citationZhao, W., Li, B., Shanks, D. R., Zhao, W., Zheng, J., Hu, X., Su, N., Fan, T., Yin, Y., Luo, L., et al. (2022) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13689 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Venue
- Psychology and Aging
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 462-474
- ISSN
- 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1498
- OpenAlex
- W1979360343
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ag013148-03)
- National Institute on Aging (R01-AG13148)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- encoding strategies, strategy effectiveness, knowledge updating, metacognitive judgments, age differences, older adults, paired associates, imagery, repetition, recall prediction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aging, Cognition, Eidetic Imagery, Female, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Random Allocation, Mental Recall, Time Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review