EXPRESS: What an Indirect Measurement Approach Reveals About the Susceptibility of Directly Assessed Metamemory Beliefs to Demand Characteristics and Ad Hoc Belief Construction.
{"title":"EXPRESS: What an Indirect Measurement Approach Reveals About the Susceptibility of Directly Assessed Metamemory Beliefs to Demand Characteristics and Ad Hoc Belief Construction.","authors":"Franziska Ingendahl, Monika Undorf","doi":"10.1177/17470218261498018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is widely accepted that predictions of one's future memory (judgments of learning, JOLs) rely on metamemory beliefs. However, many open questions remain regarding the nature and assessment of metamemory beliefs, including the extent to which strategic influences such as demand characteristics or ad hoc belief construction afflict established measures. The present study addresses this question using an indirect measurement approach. In three experiments, we assessed metamemory beliefs about font size (Experiments 1 and 2) and relatedness (Experiment 3) with two indirect measures (Experiments 1 and 3: Implicit Association Test, Experiment 2: Propositional Evaluation Paradigm) and an established direct measure (global differentiated performance predictions). Results revealed that directly assessed metamemory beliefs captured the beliefs people hold and appeared to be largely unaffected by demand characteristics. At the same time, findings suggested that directly assessed beliefs were susceptible to ad hoc belief construction. In three experiments, directly and indirectly assessed metamemory beliefs were unrelated, and only directly assessed beliefs predicted the effects of font size and relatedness on JOLs. These findings suggest that established belief measures are suitable for assessing metamemory beliefs and their contribution to cue effects on JOLs but may not always provide an uncontaminated measure of pre-existing beliefs.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"17470218261498018"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218261498018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
It is widely accepted that predictions of one's future memory (judgments of learning, JOLs) rely on metamemory beliefs. However, many open questions remain regarding the nature and assessment of metamemory beliefs, including the extent to which strategic influences such as demand characteristics or ad hoc belief construction afflict established measures. The present study addresses this question using an indirect measurement approach. In three experiments, we assessed metamemory beliefs about font size (Experiments 1 and 2) and relatedness (Experiment 3) with two indirect measures (Experiments 1 and 3: Implicit Association Test, Experiment 2: Propositional Evaluation Paradigm) and an established direct measure (global differentiated performance predictions). Results revealed that directly assessed metamemory beliefs captured the beliefs people hold and appeared to be largely unaffected by demand characteristics. At the same time, findings suggested that directly assessed beliefs were susceptible to ad hoc belief construction. In three experiments, directly and indirectly assessed metamemory beliefs were unrelated, and only directly assessed beliefs predicted the effects of font size and relatedness on JOLs. These findings suggest that established belief measures are suitable for assessing metamemory beliefs and their contribution to cue effects on JOLs but may not always provide an uncontaminated measure of pre-existing beliefs.
期刊介绍:
Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling.
QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form.
The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.