Monitoring memory errors: The influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning

Abstract

The current study examined the degree to which predictions of memory performance made immediately or at a delay are sensitive to confidently held memory illusions. Participants studied unrelated pairs of words and made judgements of learning (JOLs) for each item, either immediately or after a delay. Half of the unrelated pairs (deceptive items; e.g., nurse–dollar) had a semantically related competitor (e.g., doctor) that was easily accessible when given a test cue (e.g., nurse–do_ _ _r) and half had no semantically related competitor (control items; e.g., subject–dollar). Following the study phase, participants were administered a cued recall test. Results from Experiment 1 showed that memory performance was less accurate for deceptive compared with control items. In addition, delaying judgement improved the relative accuracy of JOLs for control items but not for deceptive items. Subsequent experiments explored the degree to which the relative accuracy of delayed JOLs for deceptive items improved as a result of a warning to ensure that retrieved memories were accurate (Experiment 2) and corrective feedback regarding the veracity of information retrieved prior to making a JOL (Experiment 3). In all, these data suggest that delayed JOLs may be largely insensitive to memory errors unless participants are provided with feedback regarding memory accuracy.

Keywords:

• Memory
• Metacognition
• Judgements of learning
• Delayed judgements of learning
• Metamemory

Acknowledgements

We thank David McCabe and John Dunlosky for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript, and Andrew Baxley, Christie Miller, Talyn Olguin, Jordan Peters, Jessica Sullenberger, and Amber Witherby for assistance with data collection.

Notes

¹Several participants reported either invariant JOLs or did not report the target for any item. These participants were excluded from analyses, reflected by variations in degrees of freedom reported for statistical tests in each of the experiments reported.

²The patterns of data obtained for gamma correlations for this and subsequent experiments do not change if one calculates alternatives measures of relative accuracy, such as d _a (cf. Masson & Rotello, 2009).

³Due to essentially ceiling levels of accurate recall for immediate JOLs (see Table 1) this analysis was confined in Experiment 1 and the subsequent experiments to delayed JOLs.

⁴The correct response was not provided, thus eliminating the possibility that the provision of feedback changed the amount of time participants were exposed to the studied pair.

⁵The pattern of results is the same if the analyses are restricted to the probability of recalling the target for deceptive items.

⁶We note that eliciting target recall just prior to the JOL provides an independent assessment of the accuracy of the information used in making the JOL and thus avoids any concerns about circularity in the logic of this argument.