The Metacognitive Optimization of Offloading Task (MOOT): Both higher costs to offload and the accuracy of memory predict goodness of offloading performance.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1037/xge0001726
Dillon H Murphy, Janet Metcalfe
{"title":"The Metacognitive Optimization of Offloading Task (MOOT): Both higher costs to offload and the accuracy of memory predict goodness of offloading performance.","authors":"Dillon H Murphy, Janet Metcalfe","doi":"10.1037/xge0001726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We developed a Metacognitive Offloading Optimization Task (MOOT) whereby participants were instructed to score as many points as possible by accessing words from a presented list either by remembering them (worth 10 points each) or by offloading them (worth less than 10 points each). Results indicated that participants were sensitive to the value of the offloaded items such that when offloaded items carried a high value (e.g., 8 points each), participants' scores were lower than if they had chosen to offload all items. Conversely, when offloaded items had a low value (e.g., 2 points each), participants' scores exceeded what they would have achieved had they offloaded all items. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigated offloading optimality. Specifically, because each individual's maximum possible score depended on how much they could remember, each participant's memory ability was assessed in a pretest. The maximum score obtainable resulted from a strategy in which the participant opts to recall every item that they will be able to remember (obtaining 10 points for each) and offloads all other items (obtaining a value greater than 0 points for each), leaving no items unrecalled and not offloaded. To implement this strategy, the participant needs to have and use metaknowledge of exactly which items they will be able to recall. In each experiment, the MOOT scores-the ratio of participants' observed score to their maximum possible score-were closer to optimal for participants with better memory ability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001726","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We developed a Metacognitive Offloading Optimization Task (MOOT) whereby participants were instructed to score as many points as possible by accessing words from a presented list either by remembering them (worth 10 points each) or by offloading them (worth less than 10 points each). Results indicated that participants were sensitive to the value of the offloaded items such that when offloaded items carried a high value (e.g., 8 points each), participants' scores were lower than if they had chosen to offload all items. Conversely, when offloaded items had a low value (e.g., 2 points each), participants' scores exceeded what they would have achieved had they offloaded all items. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigated offloading optimality. Specifically, because each individual's maximum possible score depended on how much they could remember, each participant's memory ability was assessed in a pretest. The maximum score obtainable resulted from a strategy in which the participant opts to recall every item that they will be able to remember (obtaining 10 points for each) and offloads all other items (obtaining a value greater than 0 points for each), leaving no items unrecalled and not offloaded. To implement this strategy, the participant needs to have and use metaknowledge of exactly which items they will be able to recall. In each experiment, the MOOT scores-the ratio of participants' observed score to their maximum possible score-were closer to optimal for participants with better memory ability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
A comparative investigation of interventions to reduce anti-fat prejudice across five implicit measures. High overall values mitigate gaze-related effects in perceptual and preferential choices. An associative-learning account of how infants learn about causal action in animates and inanimates: A critical reexamination of four classic studies. No evidence that sound-shape associations influence temporal resolution in humans: Five nonreplications of Parise and Spence (2009) and meta-analyses. Early perceptual locus of suppression during the attentional blink.
×
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