追溯信心的推理理论

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Metacognition and Learning Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1007/s11409-024-09396-9
Bennett L. Schwartz
{"title":"追溯信心的推理理论","authors":"Bennett L. Schwartz","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09396-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Retrospective confidence refers to the phenomenological experience of the level of certainty that retrieved information is, in fact, correct. Retrospective confidence judgments are examined across a range of sub-disciplines in psychology from perception to memory research, and in education and legal applications. This paper focuses on retrospective confidence judgments directed at memory. Typically, retrospective confidence judgments are explained by direct-access models. Direct-access models postulate that people have direct access to the strength of the retrieved memory. In contrast, inferential models posit that people use accessible heuristic cues to determine their retrospective confidence judgments. This paper outlines existing models from both the direct-access approach and the inferential approach. I then present the outcomes of studies that support the need to include inferential models in any explanation of retrospective confidence judgments. These heuristics include cue and encoding fluency, retrieval fluency, retrieval of related information, vividness of the retrieval, and self-consistency. I then present an integrative model to account for how retrospective confidence judgments are made.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inferential theories of retrospective confidence\",\"authors\":\"Bennett L. Schwartz\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11409-024-09396-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Retrospective confidence refers to the phenomenological experience of the level of certainty that retrieved information is, in fact, correct. Retrospective confidence judgments are examined across a range of sub-disciplines in psychology from perception to memory research, and in education and legal applications. This paper focuses on retrospective confidence judgments directed at memory. Typically, retrospective confidence judgments are explained by direct-access models. Direct-access models postulate that people have direct access to the strength of the retrieved memory. In contrast, inferential models posit that people use accessible heuristic cues to determine their retrospective confidence judgments. This paper outlines existing models from both the direct-access approach and the inferential approach. I then present the outcomes of studies that support the need to include inferential models in any explanation of retrospective confidence judgments. These heuristics include cue and encoding fluency, retrieval fluency, retrieval of related information, vividness of the retrieval, and self-consistency. I then present an integrative model to account for how retrospective confidence judgments are made.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09396-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09396-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回顾性信心指的是对所检索信息事实上是否正确的确定程度的现象学体验。心理学的一系列分支学科,从感知到记忆研究,以及教育和法律应用,都对回溯信心判断进行了研究。本文的重点是针对记忆的回顾性信心判断。通常情况下,回溯信心判断由直接获取模型来解释。直接获取模型假设人们可以直接获取检索记忆的强度。与此相反,推理模型则认为人们利用可获得的启发式线索来决定其回顾性信心判断。本文概述了直接获取法和推论法的现有模型。然后,我介绍了一些研究成果,这些成果支持了将推论模型纳入对回顾性信心判断的任何解释中的必要性。这些启发式方法包括线索和编码流畅性、检索流畅性、相关信息检索、检索生动性和自我一致性。然后,我提出了一个综合模型来解释回溯信心判断是如何做出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Inferential theories of retrospective confidence

Retrospective confidence refers to the phenomenological experience of the level of certainty that retrieved information is, in fact, correct. Retrospective confidence judgments are examined across a range of sub-disciplines in psychology from perception to memory research, and in education and legal applications. This paper focuses on retrospective confidence judgments directed at memory. Typically, retrospective confidence judgments are explained by direct-access models. Direct-access models postulate that people have direct access to the strength of the retrieved memory. In contrast, inferential models posit that people use accessible heuristic cues to determine their retrospective confidence judgments. This paper outlines existing models from both the direct-access approach and the inferential approach. I then present the outcomes of studies that support the need to include inferential models in any explanation of retrospective confidence judgments. These heuristics include cue and encoding fluency, retrieval fluency, retrieval of related information, vividness of the retrieval, and self-consistency. I then present an integrative model to account for how retrospective confidence judgments are made.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge exploration among students: role of feedback, feeling of confidence, and academic motivation Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms Development of metacognitive monitoring and control skills in elementary school: a latent profile approach Metacognitive reflections on essentialism during the learning of the relationship between biology and the human race On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?
×
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