Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties

Research regarding how people monitor their learning has shown that ease of processing strongly guides people’s judgments of learning (JOLs). However, the desirable difficulties concept (Bjork, 1994) suggests that studying information that is less fluent can result in greater learning. Currently, it is unclear whether people are aware of the potential benefits of desirable difficulties during learning. To address this, in Experiment 1, participants studied inverted and upright words and also made JOLs. While participants’ JOLs did not differ for inverted and upright words, recall was greater for inverted words. Experiment 2 used several study–test cycles in which participants could potentially learn about the beneficial effects of processing inverted words with task experience, and similar results were obtained. Thus, reading inverted words requires processing that enhances recall, but memory predictions do not differentiate between upright and inverted words. We interpret these results in terms of processing fluency, desirable difficulties, and theories of metacognitive monitoring.

[1]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  The Ease-of-Processing Heuristic and the Stability Bias , 2011, Psychological science.

[3]  J. S. Nairne.  The mnemonic value of perceptual identification. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension , 1990 .

[5]  P A de Winstanley,et al.  Generation effects and the lack thereof: the role of transfer-appropriate processing. , 1996, Memory.

[6]  A. Castel.  Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: The utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[7]  J. Worthen,et al.  Distinctiveness and memory. , 2006 .

[8]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: evidence for metacognitive illusions. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  R. Bjork,et al.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  Does the amount of material to be remembered influence judgements of learning (JOLs)? , 2010, Memory.

[11]  A. Koriat.  Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .

[12]  Lola L. Cuddy,et al.  Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation , 1969 .

[13]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  When People's Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are Extremely Accurate at Predicting Subsequent Recall: The “Delayed-JOL Effect” , 1991 .

[15]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Empirical analysis of the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. , 2001 .

[16]  Patricia A. de Winstanley,et al.  Generation Effects and the Lack Thereof: The Role of Transfer-appropriate Processing , 1996 .

[17]  D. Stephen Lindsay,et al.  Creating Illusions of Familiarity in a Cued Recall Remember/Know Paradigm , 1996 .

[18]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer.  The secret life of fluency , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Andrew C. Butler,et al.  A contextual framework for understanding when difficulties are desirable , 2011 .

[20]  A. Castel,et al.  Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  B. Underwood.  Individual and group predictions of item difficulty for free learning. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  E. Hirshman,et al.  Perceptual interference improves explicit memory but does not enhance data-driven processing. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[24]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Adult Egocentrism: Subjective Experience versus Analytic Bases for Judgment , 1996 .

[25]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: a componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[26]  B. Finn,et al.  Does Easily Learned Mean Easily Remembered? , 2011, Psychological science.

[27]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Fortune favors the ( ): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes , 2011, Cognition.

[28]  R. R. Hunt,et al.  The Concept of Distinctiveness in Memory Research , 2012 .

[29]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[30]  Ian Begg,et al.  Memory predictions are based on ease of processing , 1989 .

[31]  R. Bjork.  Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[32]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. , 2011, Cognition.

[33]  Asher Koriat,et al.  Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[34]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Metacognition : knowing about knowing , 1994 .