Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of value on judgment of learning in tradeoff learning condition: the mediating role of study time

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metamemory refers to the metacognitive awareness of one’s own memory status. Previous research has shown that item value plays a dominant role in self-regulated study (e.g., strategic choices regarding when, what, and how to study). In spite of extensive research on the effects of item value on in learners’ study behaviour, less is known about the effects of item value on judgments of learning (JOLs; i.e., metacognitive predictions about the likelihood that a given item can be remembered at a future occasion), especially when item value and item difficulty conflict. Three experiments were conducted in the present study to examine whether the effect of item-value can override the effect of item difficulty on JOLs. In each trial, three word pairs, associated with varying difficulty levels, were presented simultaneously, and the three pairs were all associated with a single point value in the constant-value condition, but with different point values in the tradeoff condition. Point values were presented alongside the word pairs. After the learning phase, participants made item-by-item JOLs. Experiment 1 demonstrated that JOLs systematically decreased with the increase of item difficulty in the constant value condition. Critically, item-value eliminated (but failed to reverse) people’s preference for easy items in the 1–3-6 tradeoff condition. Experiment 2 expanded the value gradient and found a full reversal, such that JOLs were primarily influenced by item value. Experiment 3 measured study time allocation to explore the mechanisms underlying learners’ metacognitive monitoring process. A mediation analysis showed that the direct effect of value on JOLs was apparent only when value was highly salient; with lower value salience, the effect of value on JOLs was entirely mediated by changes in study time. The findings of the present study further complement the agenda-based regulation (ABR) model on value-directed metacognitive monitoring. An analytic method to examine the function of a particular cue on JOLs for the cue-utilization hypothesis is also provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data in the constant-value condition in Experiment 1 were excluded from this ANOVA analysis because Experiment 2 did not include a constant-value condition.

References

  • Ariel, R., & Castel, A. D. (2014). Eyes wide open: Enhanced pupil dilation when selectively studying important information. Experimental Brain Research, 232(1), 337–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138(3), 432–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariel, R., Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(5), 1015–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Hirshman, E. (1998). Predicting the future and reconstructing the past: A Bayesian characterization of the utility of subjective fluency. Acta Psychologica, 98(2–3), 267–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, M., Nelson, T. O., & Kirwan, A. (1997). Tradeoff of semantic relatedness and degree of overlearning: Differential effects on metamemory and on long-term retention. Acta Psychologica, 95(3), 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D. (2007). The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: Evaluative processing and value-directed remembering. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48(12), 225–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D. (2008). Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: The utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning. Memory and Cognition, 36(2), 429–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D., Benjamin, A. S., Craik, F. I. M., & Watkins, M. J. (2002). The effects of aging on selectivity and control in short-term recall. Memory and Cognition, 30(7), 1078–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D., Farb, N. A. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (2007a). Memory for general and specific value information in younger and older adults: Measuring the limits of strategic control. Memory & Cognition, 35, 689–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. L. (2007b). Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(1), 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A. D., Humphreys, K. L., Lee, S. S., Galván, A., Balota, D. A., & Mccabe, D. P. (2011). The development of memory efficiency and value-directed remembering across the life span: A cross-sectional study of memory and selectivity. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1553–1564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castel, A.D., McGillivray, S., Friedman, M.C. (2012). Metamemory and memory efficiency in older adults: Learning about the benefits of priority processing and value-directed remembering. Memory and Aging: Current Issues and Future Directions. 245–270.

  • Castel, A. D., Murayama, K., Friedman, M. C., McGillivray, S., & Link, I. (2013). Selecting valuable information to remember: Age-related differences and similarities in self-regulated learning. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 232–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 54, 103–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249–276). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), 1180–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20(4), 374–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32(5), 779–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L. (1954). Procedures for the analysis of classroom tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14(2), 352–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, K. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, K., Yue, C. L., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2016). Achievement goals affect metacognitive judgments. Motivation Science, 2(4), 199–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassam, K. S., Gilbert, D. T., Swencionis, J. K., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Misconceptions of memory: The scooter libby effect. Psychological Science, 20(5), 551–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, W. L. (2000). Metamemory cues and monitoring accuracy: Judging what you know and what you will know. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(92), 800–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring One's own knowledge during study: A Cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2002). 11 Metacognition research: an interim report. Applied metacognition, 261.

  • Koriat, A., & Ma'ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 478–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ma'ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2014). The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 386–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (2001). Emotional decisions: Tradeoff difficulty and coping in consumer choice. Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, I. M., Bui, D. C., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2015). Retrieval monitoring is influenced by information value: The interplay between importance and confidence on false memory. Acta psychologica, 161, 7–17.

  • Mackinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, G., & Nelson, T. O. (1995). Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1263–1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modern Chinese Frequency Dictionary. (1986). Beijing Language Institute Press (in Chinese).

  • Mueller, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 245–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 550–554.

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, N. C., & Mccabe, D. P. (2011). The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: Evidence for agenda-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 553–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2015). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluency. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 647–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. J., & Bloom, L. C. (1999). Selectivity in memory: An exploration of willful control over the remembering process. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Wen, Z., Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2010). Structural equation models of latent interactions: An appropriate standardized solution and its scale-free properties. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). Metacognitive unawareness of the errorful generation benefit and its effects on self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1073–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., Huang, S. T., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawadzka, K., & Higham, P. A. (2015). Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability. Memory & Cognition, 43(8), 1168–1179.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yang Yu and Yingjie Jiang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, 5268 Renmin Street, Changchun, Jilin Province, 130024, People’s Republic of China

    Yang Yu, Yingjie Jiang & Feifei Li

Authors
  1. Yang Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingjie Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feifei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingjie Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Psychology school of Northeast Normal University. This manuscript is original, not previously published or under concurrent consideration elsewhere.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, Y., Jiang, Y. & Li, F. The effect of value on judgment of learning in tradeoff learning condition: the mediating role of study time. Metacognition Learning 15, 435–454 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09234-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09234-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation