Do immediate judgments of learning alter memory performance? A meta-analytical review

To uncover how people monitor their learning and memory, researchers often elicit learners' predictions of their future memory performance immediately after studying, so-called immediate judgments of learning (JOLs). Previous research on immediate JOL reactivity shows that soliciting immediate JOLs can change memory. It is not well-understood, however, under which conditions making JOLs improves, impairs, or does not affect memory and which processes contribute to immediate JOL reactivity. The present study provides a comprehensive meta-analysis of immediate JOL reactivity based on 344 effect sizes from 175 independent experiments reported in 49 records with a total sample size of 15,079 adults. Overall, making JOLs improved memory performance (g = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [0.17, 0.27]). Whereas a meta-analysis of a subset of effect sizes with word pairs yielded virtually identical results (g = 0.23), we also found that JOL reactivity differed considerably depending on word-pair relatedness: Related pairs revealed small-to-moderate positive reactivity (g = 0.44), whereas unrelated pairs showed small negative reactivity (g = -0.09). Moderator analyses indicated that the size and direction of JOL reactivity varied depending on experimental characteristics (e.g., study materials, memory tests, or manipulating making JOLs within or between participants). Moderator effects were only partially consistent with existing theoretical accounts. Results revealed indications of publication bias favoring positive reactivity over no reactivity or negative reactivity. This study attests that making JOLs can change memory and highlight the need for refined theories to explain when and why these effects occur. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).