学习判断(JOL)影响项目记忆,但不影响源记忆:利用多项式模型了解 JOL 的反应性。

IF 2.2 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Sarah J Myers, Matthew G Rhodes, Vanessa M Loaiza
{"title":"学习判断(JOL)影响项目记忆,但不影响源记忆:利用多项式模型了解 JOL 的反应性。","authors":"Sarah J Myers, Matthew G Rhodes, Vanessa M Loaiza","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past research has evaluated participants' understanding of their memory by soliciting judgments of learning (JOLs). Importantly, JOLs sometimes change memory for the judged material, leading to <i>JOL reactivity</i>. The cue-strengthening account (Soderstrom et al., 2015) and changed-goal account (Mitchum et al., 2016) propose different mechanisms that lead to JOL reactivity. In the present study, we collected measures that can provide further insight into these mechanisms. Specifically, participants studied related and unrelated word pairs in different colored fonts for a source recognition test. Across three experiments, data were analyzed using a hierarchical Bayesian model of multidimensional source memory to determine how JOLs impact item memory as well as relatedness and color source memory. In Experiment 2, we also compared the effects of making JOLs to making judgments of relatedness (JORs), and Experiment 3 examined how JOLs impact study time allocation. The results of our experiments failed to fully follow predictions of either account. Making JOLs (Experiments 1-3) and JORs (Experiment 2) strengthened item memory for related as well as unrelated pairs, the latter finding not predicted by either account. In addition, JOLs and JORs did not specifically strengthen source memory for relatedness, as the cue-strengthening account predicts, nor did JOLs change study time (Experiment 3), as suggested by the changed-goal account. In all, our results provide novel insight that enhanced item memory may be largely responsible for JOL reactivity, thus adjudicating between candidate explanations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judgments of learning (JOLs) impact item memory but not source memory: Insights into JOL reactivity using a multinomial model.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah J Myers, Matthew G Rhodes, Vanessa M Loaiza\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0001176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Past research has evaluated participants' understanding of their memory by soliciting judgments of learning (JOLs). Importantly, JOLs sometimes change memory for the judged material, leading to <i>JOL reactivity</i>. The cue-strengthening account (Soderstrom et al., 2015) and changed-goal account (Mitchum et al., 2016) propose different mechanisms that lead to JOL reactivity. In the present study, we collected measures that can provide further insight into these mechanisms. Specifically, participants studied related and unrelated word pairs in different colored fonts for a source recognition test. Across three experiments, data were analyzed using a hierarchical Bayesian model of multidimensional source memory to determine how JOLs impact item memory as well as relatedness and color source memory. In Experiment 2, we also compared the effects of making JOLs to making judgments of relatedness (JORs), and Experiment 3 examined how JOLs impact study time allocation. The results of our experiments failed to fully follow predictions of either account. Making JOLs (Experiments 1-3) and JORs (Experiment 2) strengthened item memory for related as well as unrelated pairs, the latter finding not predicted by either account. In addition, JOLs and JORs did not specifically strengthen source memory for relatedness, as the cue-strengthening account predicts, nor did JOLs change study time (Experiment 3), as suggested by the changed-goal account. In all, our results provide novel insight that enhanced item memory may be largely responsible for JOL reactivity, thus adjudicating between candidate explanations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001176\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001176","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去的研究通过征求学习判断(JOL)来评估参与者对其记忆的理解。重要的是,JOL 有时会改变对被判定材料的记忆,从而导致 JOL 反应性。线索加强说(Soderstrom 等人,2015 年)和目标改变说(Mitchum 等人,2016 年)提出了导致 JOL 反应性的不同机制。在本研究中,我们收集了可以进一步了解这些机制的测量数据。具体来说,受试者使用不同颜色的字体学习相关和不相关的词对,进行词源识别测试。在三个实验中,我们使用多维来源记忆的分层贝叶斯模型对数据进行了分析,以确定 JOL 如何影响项目记忆以及相关性和颜色来源记忆。在实验 2 中,我们还比较了做出 JOL 与做出相关性判断(JOR)的效果;实验 3 则考察了 JOL 对学习时间分配的影响。我们的实验结果未能完全符合这两种说法的预测。进行 JOL(实验 1-3)和 JOR(实验 2)加强了对相关和不相关的项目记忆,而这两种说法都没有预测到后者。此外,JOLs 和 JORs 并没有像线索强化说所预测的那样,特别强化对相关性的源记忆;JOLs 也没有像目标改变说所预测的那样,改变学习时间(实验 3)。总之,我们的研究结果提供了新的见解,即项目记忆的增强可能在很大程度上导致了JOL反应性,从而对候选解释做出了裁决。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judgments of learning (JOLs) impact item memory but not source memory: Insights into JOL reactivity using a multinomial model.

Past research has evaluated participants' understanding of their memory by soliciting judgments of learning (JOLs). Importantly, JOLs sometimes change memory for the judged material, leading to JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening account (Soderstrom et al., 2015) and changed-goal account (Mitchum et al., 2016) propose different mechanisms that lead to JOL reactivity. In the present study, we collected measures that can provide further insight into these mechanisms. Specifically, participants studied related and unrelated word pairs in different colored fonts for a source recognition test. Across three experiments, data were analyzed using a hierarchical Bayesian model of multidimensional source memory to determine how JOLs impact item memory as well as relatedness and color source memory. In Experiment 2, we also compared the effects of making JOLs to making judgments of relatedness (JORs), and Experiment 3 examined how JOLs impact study time allocation. The results of our experiments failed to fully follow predictions of either account. Making JOLs (Experiments 1-3) and JORs (Experiment 2) strengthened item memory for related as well as unrelated pairs, the latter finding not predicted by either account. In addition, JOLs and JORs did not specifically strengthen source memory for relatedness, as the cue-strengthening account predicts, nor did JOLs change study time (Experiment 3), as suggested by the changed-goal account. In all, our results provide novel insight that enhanced item memory may be largely responsible for JOL reactivity, thus adjudicating between candidate explanations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
4.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信