The metamemory expectancy illusion in source monitoring affects metamemory control and memory

In source monitoring, schematic expectations affect both memory and metamemory. In metamemory judgments, people predict better source memory for items that originated from an expected source (e.g., oven in the kitchen) than for items that originated from an unexpected source (e.g., hairdryer in the kitchen; expectancy effect; Schaper et al., 2019a). By contrast, actual source memory is either unaffected by expectations or better for unexpected sources (inconsistency effect; Kuhlmann & Bayen, 2016). Thus, the metamemory expectancy effect is illusory. This research is the first to test the hypotheses that such metamemory monitoring of source memory affects metamemory control (i.e., measures taken to achieve a desired level of memory; Nelson & Narens, 1990) and memory. Due to their expectancy illusion, people should choose to restudy unexpected source-item pairs more often. Three participant groups (n = 36 each) studied expected and unexpected source-item pairs. One group rendered metamemory judgments and chose pairs for restudy. A second group made restudy choices only. These two groups then restudied the chosen pairs. A third group did not make restudy choices and restudied a random half of the pairs. All participants completed a source-monitoring test. As predicted, participants chose unexpected pairs more often for restudy based on their illusory conviction that they would remember unexpected sources more poorly. These restudy choices concurred with an inconsistency effect on source memory not shown in the group without restudy choices. Thus, the metamemory illusion related to control and memory in source monitoring.