Cited by 189Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryAging and Gerontology Research

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

Dunlosky, John, Hertzog, Christopher·2000·Psychology and Aging

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

Crossref · 10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.462

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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