Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect
Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.003
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Higham, Philip A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hanczakowski, Maciej;Zawadzka, Katarzyna;Higham, Philip A.
校准研究通常将0-100%范围内的平均学习判断（JOL）与平均回忆进行比较，以确定是否存在过度自信（JOL >回忆）、自信不足（JOL <回忆）或现实主义（JOL =回忆）。这项研究是建立在假设的JOL直接反映潜在的概率表示，如果是真的，这应该意味着从研究结果采用百分JOL量表将推广到其他措施的主观概率。我们报告了四个实验，在实践不足（UWP）效应的背景下测试了这一假设，发现JOL低估了多周期配对联想学习任务（例如，Koriat，Sheffer，82 Ma'ayan，2002）。特别是，在实验1中复制标准UWP效应与规模JOL后，我们测试了该效应是否会推广到实验2中的二进制JOL判断和/或实验3中的二进制投注决策。在两个实验中均未观察到UWP效应。最后，为了确保纪念和元记忆证据等同于每种判断类型，每个项目都被分配一个规模JOL和二进制投注的决定在实验4。观察到0-100%规模JOL的UWP，但不是二元投注决策。总之，结果表明，JOL可能不直接反映主观概率，而是反映了一个初始的是/否决定未来的回忆，其次是一个信心评级。(C)2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Research on calibration typically compares mean judgments-of-learning (JOLs) made on a 0-100% scale with mean recall to determine whether there is overconfidence (JOL > recall), underconfidence (JOL < recall), or realism (JOL = recall). This research is founded on the assumption that JOLs directly reflect underlying representations of probability, which, if true, should mean that results from studies employing per cent JOL scales will generalize to other measures of subjective probability. We report four experiments that tested this assumption in the context of the underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect, the finding that JOLs underestimate recall on second and subsequent study-test cycles of multi-cycle paired-associate learning tasks (e.g., Koriat, Sheffer, 82 Ma'ayan, 2002). In particular, after replicating the standard UWP effect with scale JOLs in Experiment 1, we tested whether the effect would generalize to a binary JOL judgment in Experiment 2 and/or a binary betting decision in Experiment 3. In neither experiment was the UWP effect observed. Finally, to ensure that memorial and metamemorial evidence was equated for each judgment type, each item was assigned both a scale JOL and a binary betting decision in Experiment 4. UWP was observed for the 0-100% scale JOL, but not the binary betting decision. Together, the results suggest that JOLs may not directly reflect subjective probability but rather reflect an initial yes/no decision about future recall followed by a confidence rating. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.