Judgments of Learning are Influenced by Multiple Cues In Addition to Memory for Past Test Accuracy

When people try to learn new information (e.g., in a school setting), they often have multiple opportunities to study the material. One of the most important things to know is whether people adjust their study behavior on the basis of past success so as to increase their overall level of learning (for example, by emphasizing information they have not yet learned). Monitoring their learning is a key part of being able to make those kinds of adjustments. We used a recognition memory task to replicate prior research showing that memory for past test outcomes influences later monitoring, as measured by judgments of learning (JOLs; confidence that the material has been learned), but also to show that subjective confidence in whether the test answer and the amount of time taken to restudy the items also have independent effects on JOLs. We also show that there are individual differences in the effects of test accuracy and test confidence on JOLs, showing that some but not all people use past test experiences to guide monitoring of their new learning. Monitoring learning is therefore a complex process of considering multiple cues, and some people attend to those cues more effectively than others. Improving the quality of monitoring performance and learning could lead to better study behaviors and better learning. An individual's memory of past test performance (MPT) is often cited as the primary cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) following test experience during multi-trial learning tasks (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007; 2008). We used an associative recognition task to evaluate MPT-related phenomena, because performance monitoring, as measured by recognition test confidence judgments (CJs), is fallible and varies in accuracy across persons. The current study used multilevel regression models to show the simultaneous and independent influences of multiple cues on Trial 2 JOLs, in addition to performance accuracy (the typical measure of MPT in cued-recall experiments). These cues include recognition CJs, perceived recognition fluency, and Trial 2 study time allocation (an index of reprocessing fluency). Our results expand the scope of MPT-related phenomena in recognition memory testing to show independent effects of recognition test accuracy and CJs on second-trial JOLs, while also demonstrating individual differences in the effects of these cues on JOLs (as manifested in significant random effects for those regression effects in the model). The effect of study time on second-trial JOLs controlling on other variables, including Trial 1 recognition memory accuracy, also demonstrates that second-trial encoding behavior influence JOLs in addition to MPT.