Delaying metamemory judgments corrects the expectancy illusion in source monitoring: The role of fluency and belief.

Abstract

In schema-based source monitoring, people mistakenly predict better source memory for expected sources (e.g., oven in the kitchen; expectancy effect), whereas actual source memory is better for unexpected sources (e.g., hairdryer in the kitchen; inconsistency effect; Schaper et al., 2019b). In three source-monitoring experiments, the authors tested whether a delay between study and metamemory judgments remedied this metamemory expectancy illusion. Further, the authors tested whether delayed judgments were based on in-the-moment experiences of retrieval fluency or updating of belief due to experiences with one's source memory. Participants studied source-item pairs and provided metamemory judgments either at study or after delay. After delay, they made judgments either on the complete source-item pair (eliciting no source retrieval, Experiment 1) or on the item only (eliciting covert, Experiment 1, or overt source retrieval, Experiments 2 and 3). Metamemory judgments at study showed the established illusory expectancy effect, as did delayed judgments when no source retrieval was elicited. However, when participants retrieved the source prior to delayed judgments, they predicted an inconsistency effect on source memory, which concurred with actual memory. Thus, delaying judgments remedied the metamemory expectancy illusion. Results further indicate that in-the-moment experiences of retrieval fluency and updated general belief about the effect of expectancy on source memory jointly contributed to this remedial effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).