Understanding metacognitive confidence : insights from judgment-of-learning justifications
MetadataShow full item record
This study employed the delayed judgment-of-learning (JOL) paradigm to investigate the content of metacognitive judgments; after studying cue-target word-pairs, participants predicted their ability to remember targets on a future memory test (cued recognition in Experiments 1 and 2 and cued recall in Experiment 3). In Experiment 1 and the confidence JOL group of Experiment 3, participants used a commonly employed 6-point numeric confidence JOL scale (0–20–40–60–80–100%). In Experiment 2 and the binary JOL group of Experiment 3 participants first made a binary yes/no JOL prediction followed by a 3-point verbal confidence judgment (sure-maybe-guess). In all experiments, on a subset of trials, participants gave a written justification of why they gave that specific JOL response. We used natural language processing techniques (latent semantic analysis and word frequency [n-gram] analysis) to characterize the content of the written justifications and to capture what types of evidence evaluation uniquely separate one JOL response type from others. We also used a machine learning classification algorithm (support vector machine [SVM]) to quantify the extent to which any two JOL responses differed from each other. We found that: (i) participants can justify and explain their JOLs; (ii) these justifications reference cue familiarity and target accessibility and so are particularly consistent with the two-stage metacognitive model; and (iii) JOL confidence judgements do not correspond to yes/no responses in the manner typically assumed within the literature (i.e. 0–40% interpreted as no predictions).
Jersakova , R , Allan , R , Booth , J , Souchay , C & O'Connor , A R 2017 , ' Understanding metacognitive confidence : insights from judgment-of-learning justifications ' , Journal of Memory and Language , vol. 97 , pp. 187-207 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.08.002
Journal of Memory and Language
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created accepted version manuscript following peer review and as such may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.08.002
DescriptionThis research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council Studentship awarded to Radka Jersakova [ES/J500215/1].
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.