When People's Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are Extremely Accurate at Predicting Subsequent Recall: The “Delayed-JOL Effect”
Abstract
Judgments of learning (JOLs), which pertain to knowing what one knows and which help to guide self-paced study during acquisition, have almost never been very accurate at predicting subsequent recall. We recently discovered a situation in which the JOLs can be made to be extremely accurate. Here we report the conditions under which such high accuracy occurs, namely, when the JOL made on the stimulus cue is delayed until shortly after study rather than being made immediately after study. Discussion is focused both on theoretical explanations (to be explored in future research) and on potential applications of the delayed-JOL effect.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Judgments of learning (JOLs) show better sensitivity when the delay between initial learning and JOL is increased.
“judgments of learning (JOLs) show better sensitivity when the delay between initial learning and JOL is increased (Nelson and Dunlosky, 1991)”
From How to measure metacognition (2014) · cites this paper as Nelson and Dunlosky, 1991
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 12 · Cited by 580
- Authors
- Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- ORCID
- Dunlosky, John
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 267-271
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2006172948
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 3.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- judgments of learning, metacognition, recall prediction, metacognitive accuracy, self-paced learning, metacognitive confidence
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
