Immediate judgments of learning are insensitive to implicit interference effects at retrieval.

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Metacognition
• Memory Research

Background:

• Metamemory judgments, such as judgments of learning (JOLs), are crucial for understanding memory self-monitoring.
• Implicit interference effects, like those from varying association set sizes, can impact retrieval accuracy.
• Previous research indicates metamemory predictions at retrieval (e.g., delayed JOLs, feeling-of-knowing) reflect these interference effects.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether metamemory predictions made during encoding, specifically immediate judgments of learning (IJOLs), are sensitive to implicit interference effects at retrieval.
• To compare the sensitivity of IJOLs versus retrieval-based metamemory judgments (delayed JOLs and feeling-of-knowing) to implicit interference.

Main Methods:

• Three experiments were conducted manipulating implicit interference by altering cue or target association set size.
• Participants made immediate judgments of learning (IJOLs) during encoding.
• Delayed judgments of learning (DJOLs) and feeling-of-knowing (FOK) judgments were assessed later, along with memory retrieval performance.

Main Results:

• Delayed JOLs and FOK judgments accurately predicted the impact of set size on retrieval.
• Immediate JOLs (IJOLs) did not show sensitivity to the set size effects on memory retrieval.
• Set size effects on memory were observed only under extralist cueing conditions, not intralist.

Conclusions:

• Metamemory predictions are not solely based on direct access to memory traces but are inferred from available information.
• The source of information used for metamemory inferences differs depending on whether predictions are made during encoding or retrieval.
• Immediate metamemory judgments (IJOLs) are less sensitive to implicit retrieval interference than later judgments.