Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning

Abstract

This research explored the absolute accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs), wherein absolute accuracy pertains to how well the magnitude of the participant's predictions of recall correspond to his or her subsequent recall. The Anchoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does not change systematically with item difficulty; analogous to a broken clock that is correct twice a day, the absolute magnitude of JOLs may be accurate by chance and not because of any inherent predictive ability. Alternatively, the Monitoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does vary systematically with item difficulty. The Dual-Factors hypothesis proposes that the absolute accuracy of JOLs is affected by some combination of monitoring and anchoring. In four experiments, participants studied a list of paired-associates with a high, medium or low normative proportion of recall, then made JOLs for every item, and subsequently had a recall test. The absolute accuracy of JOLs was investigated both for immediate JOLs and for delayed JOLs. The results were consistent with the Monitoring Hypothesis for delayed JOLs and with the Dual-Factors Hypothesis for immediate JOLs.