Do changed learning goals explain why metamemory judgments reactively affect memory?

IF 2.9 1区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Journal of memory and language Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2024.104506
Baike Li , David R. Shanks , Wenbo Zhao , Xiao Hu , Liang Luo , Chunliang Yang
{"title":"Do changed learning goals explain why metamemory judgments reactively affect memory?","authors":"Baike Li ,&nbsp;David R. Shanks ,&nbsp;Wenbo Zhao ,&nbsp;Xiao Hu ,&nbsp;Liang Luo ,&nbsp;Chunliang Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Measurement of mental processes is the bedrock of cognitive psychology, but the interpretation of such measurements is profoundly undermined by evidence that many mental processes are changed by (are reactive to) the act of being observed and measured. The current article is concerned with one particular type of reactivity, namely changes in memory performance when individuals are asked to concurrently monitor their learning via judgments of learning (JOLs). One explanation for memory reactivity is that the requirement to engage in metamemory monitoring changes learners’ goals, shifting them towards greater prioritization of mastering easy items and de-prioritization of memorizing difficult ones. This hypothesis is tested in 5 experiments (2 of which were pre-registered), which varied item difficulty by contrasting related (e.g., </span><em>computer</em> – <em>keyboard</em>) and unrelated (e.g., <em>book</em> – <em>shoe</em>) word pairs. While the experiments find robust evidence that recall is affected by the requirement to make immediate JOLs (reactivity), two key predictions of the goal-change account are not supported. The observed findings suggest that a change in the learner’s goal is not the main mechanism underlying JOL reactivity. Alternative explanations for why memory is reactive to metamemory judgments are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 104506"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000093","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Measurement of mental processes is the bedrock of cognitive psychology, but the interpretation of such measurements is profoundly undermined by evidence that many mental processes are changed by (are reactive to) the act of being observed and measured. The current article is concerned with one particular type of reactivity, namely changes in memory performance when individuals are asked to concurrently monitor their learning via judgments of learning (JOLs). One explanation for memory reactivity is that the requirement to engage in metamemory monitoring changes learners’ goals, shifting them towards greater prioritization of mastering easy items and de-prioritization of memorizing difficult ones. This hypothesis is tested in 5 experiments (2 of which were pre-registered), which varied item difficulty by contrasting related (e.g., computerkeyboard) and unrelated (e.g., bookshoe) word pairs. While the experiments find robust evidence that recall is affected by the requirement to make immediate JOLs (reactivity), two key predictions of the goal-change account are not supported. The observed findings suggest that a change in the learner’s goal is not the main mechanism underlying JOL reactivity. Alternative explanations for why memory is reactive to metamemory judgments are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学习目标的改变能否解释为什么元记忆判断会对记忆产生反应性影响?
对心理过程的测量是认知心理学的基石,但有证据表明,许多心理过程会因观察和测量行为而发生变化(对这种行为产生反应),这就大大削弱了对这些测量结果的解释。本文关注的是一种特殊类型的反应性,即当个体被要求通过学习判断(JOLs)同时监控自己的学习时,记忆表现会发生变化。对记忆反应性的一种解释是,参与元记忆监控的要求改变了学习者的目标,使他们更加优先掌握简单的项目,而不再优先记忆困难的项目。这一假设在 5 个实验(其中 2 个是预先注册的)中得到了验证,这些实验通过对比相关(如电脑-键盘)和不相关(如书-鞋)的词对来改变项目难度。虽然实验发现了强有力的证据,证明记忆会受到即时 JOL 的要求(反应性)的影响,但目标改变说的两个关键预测却没有得到支持。观察结果表明,学习者目标的改变并不是 JOL 反应性的主要机制。本文讨论了记忆对元记忆判断作出反应的其他解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12.7 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published. The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech. Research Areas include: • Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing • Linguistics • Neuropsychology.
期刊最新文献
A distributional model of concepts grounded in the spatial organization of objects Shared mechanisms in pragmatic enrichment with contextual and lexical alternatives Investigating the cognitive correlates of semantic and perceptual false memory in older and younger adults: A multi-group latent variable approach Larger lexicons enable representation of fine-grained phonological similarity structure: Evidence from English L2 speakers’ sound similarity judgments of word pairs Animacy outweighs topichood when choosing pronouns and word order
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1