CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Using the past to predict the future

Open access
Dougherty, Michael R., Scheck, Petra, Nelson, Thomas O., Narens, Louis·2005·Memory & Cognition
DOI 10.3758/bf03193216
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research addressed three issues. First, we examined whether retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) and judgments of learning (JOLs) assess memory differently. Second, we examined the relative accuracy of JOLs and RCJs at predicting future recall performance. Third, we examined whether making JOLs improves subsequent recall better than making RCJs or making no metacognitive judgment. Results suggest that RCJs and JOLs are both based on retrievability, but that participants use their memory differently when making JOLs. RCJs were more accurate than JOLs at predicting future recall for some subsets of items, but the reverse was true for other subsets of items. Finally, eventual recall performance was facilitated when participants made JOLs but not when they made RCJs, suggesting that the JOL task helps to improve people's learning of the items.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03193216

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The positive reactivity effect on children's learning may be accounted for by the positive reactivity theory, which proposes that positive reactivity is primarily caused by making item-by-item JOLs encouraging learners to adopt more effective encoding strategies and exert greater study effort.

    “The positive reactivity effect on children's learning may be accounted for by the positivereactivity theory (Mitchum et al., 2016; Rivers, 2018; Dougherty, Scheck, Nelson, & Narens, 2005), which proposes that positive reactivity is primarily caused by the fact that making item-by-item JOLs encourages learners to adopt more effective encoding strategies and exert greater study effort.”

    From When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning (2022) · cites this paper as Dougherty, Scheck, Nelson, & Narens, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dougherty, M. R., Scheck, P., Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Dougherty, Michael R.
ORCID
Dougherty, Michael R.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-09
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
1096-1115
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
DOI
10.3758/bf03193216
OpenAlex
W2019407022
Cited by
78
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0134678)
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • Institute of Education Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
judgments of learning, metacognition, memory prediction, recall performance, metacognitive accuracy, metacognitive training, memory retrieval
MeSH terms
Humans, Judgment, Mental Recall, Time Perception, Vocabulary

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