Understanding metacognitive confidence: Insights from judgment-of-learning justifications.
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 i...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Memory & Language Vol. 97; pp. 187 - 208 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier B.V.
Dec2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=125058801&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 125058801 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0749596X JMM jtl: Journal of Memory & Language issn: 0749596X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2017 vid: 97 pid: 467 pub: Elsevier B.V. artinfo: ui: 125058801 10.1016/j.jml.2017.08.002 ppf: 187 ppct: 21 formats: tig: atl: Understanding metacognitive confidence: Insights from judgment-of-learning justifications. aug: au: Jersakova, Radka Allen, Richard J. Booth, Jonathan Souchay, Céline O'Connor, Akira R. affil: School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9JP, UK Laboratoire de Psychologie et Neurocognition CNRS UMR 5105, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble 38040, France su: Cognition Confidence Judgment (Psychology) Learning Memory Writing Phonological awareness Prompts (Psychology) sug: subj: Cognition Confidence Judgment (Psychology) Learning Memory Writing Phonological awareness Prompts (Psychology) keyword: Episodic memory Judgments-of-learning Linguistics Metacognition Episodic memory Judgments-of-learning Linguistics Metacognition ab: 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). pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|