Judgments of learning improve multiple-choice recognition but not short-answer recall of educational text passages

JOL reactivity refers to the finding that making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying material influences later memory for that material. Findings of JOL reactivity have been mixed, with some experiments reporting changes to memory when participants make JOLs and others finding no influence of JOLs. Soderstrom, Clark, Halamish, and Bjork (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553-558, 2015) proposed that JOL reactivity will only occur if the final test is sensitive to the same cues used to inform JOLs. The current study evaluated this account by manipulating the type of final test. In four experiments, participants studied mixed lists of related and unrelated word pairs and either made JOLs or did not make JOLs. Making JOLs generally enhanced memory for related word pairs when a cued-recall test was administered. However, during free recall, JOLs had no influence on memory for target information, likely because cue-target associations (which are used to inform JOLs) are less beneficial in the absence of cues. JOLs improved item recognition memory for words that were studied in related pairs, although the effect was small. Collectively, data from a meta-analysis of these experiments indicate that JOL reactivity depends on the type of final test, with reactivity most likely to occur when the final test is sensitive to the same cues used to inform JOLs. Future work should continue examining different tests and study materials in order to develop a comprehensive theory of JOL reactivity.

Research has shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) often produce a reactive effect on the learning of cue-target pairs in which target recall differs between participants who provide item-based JOLs at study versus those who do not. Positive reactivity, or the memory improvement found when JOLs are provided, is typically observed on related pairs, while no reactivity is commonly found on unrelated pairs. In four experiments, we examined JOL reactivity effects by comparing JOL and no-JOL groups to other groups who engaged in relational-type encoding/judgment tasks. Experiment 1 replicated positive JOL reactivity effects with related pairs with an extension to symmetrically related pairs. Next, Experiment 2 found that providing judgments of associative memory—a task that does not involve memory predictions—yielded equivalent reactivity patterns as JOLs. Experiment 3 replicated this reactivity pattern using a frequency of co-occurrence judgment task. Finally, In Experiment 4, a similar positive reactivity pattern was found using a relational encoding task when compared to a standard JOL. Collectively, our results suggest that previous JOL reactivity patterns are not solely due to memory forecasting processes via JOLs and likely reflect relational encoding that is strategically applied towards related, but not unrelated pairs.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-022-09301-2.

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy-cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.

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).

Recent studies established that engaging metacognitive monitoring via making judgments of learning (JOLs) can directly enhance young adults' recognition memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect of JOLs. The present study explored the reactive influence of making JOLs on older adults' recognition memory and probed the potential age-related differences in this effect. In three experiments, participants were instructed to study four lists of words, with two lists studied with concurrent JOLs and the other two without, followed by a recognition test. The results provided strong evidence that making JOLs improves older adults' recognition performance (Experiments 1-3) through enhancing both recollection- and familiarity-based recognition (Experiment 3). But the positive reactivity effect on recognition memory for older adults was weaker than that for young adults (Experiments 2 and 3). To elucidate potential mechanisms underlying age-related differences in the reactivity effect, the present study also measured participants' learning engagement and cognitive abilities. The model results substantiated the mediating role of learning engagement, supporting the enhanced learning engagement theory, rather than the dual-task hypothesis, as an account for the reactivity effect on recognition memory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

When learners make judgments of learning (JOLs) for some word pairs but not others, how and why is recall performance affected? Participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs for a randomly selected half of the pairs. We evaluated two hypotheses. The changed-goal hypothesis states that making JOLs leads learners to notice differences in pair difficulty and to change their learning goal. Because JOLs are manipulated within participants, such a goal change should influence how all (judged or non-judged) pairs are processed on the list, which should lead to no JOL reactivity. The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity (i.e., higher recall for judged versus non-judged pairs) for related than unrelated pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the two words in a pair, which would be more beneficial for pairs with an a priori relationship. Across experiments, we found positive reactivity for both related and unrelated pairs (albeit to a lesser degree for the latter). We also found no evidence that learners make qualitative changes in their reported strategy use when judging pairs. Making JOLs for some pairs on a list influenced memory performance and the pattern of reactivity provided support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) reactivity refers to the finding that the mere solicitation of JOLs modifies subsequent memory performance. One theoretical explanation is the item-specific processing hypothesis, which posits that item-level JOLs redound to the benefit of later memory performance because they enhance item-specific processing. The current study was designed to test this account. We factorially manipulated the organization (blocked vs. randomized) of categorized lists and JOL condition (item-JOLs, list-JOLs, no-JOLs) between participants, and fit the dual-retrieval model to free recall data to pinpoint the underlying memory processes that were affected by JOL solicitation. Our results showed that item-level JOLs produced positive reactivity for randomized but not for blocked categorized lists. Moreover, we found that the positive JOL reactivity for randomized categorized lists was tied to a familiarity judgment process that is associated with gist processing, rather than to item-specific recollective processes. Thus, our results pose a challenge to the item-specific processing explanation of JOL reactivity. We argue that JOL reactivity is not restricted to item-specific processing; instead, whether JOLs predominantly engage participants with item-specific or relational processing depends on the interaction between learning stimuli and JOLs.

There is much controversy on the psychological mechanism of Judgements of learning (JOLs). Cue-utilization approach proposed by Koriat considers that most of the cues can be grouped into three classes: intrinsic, extrinsic, and mnemonic. Both intrinsic and extrinsic cues may affect JOLs directly, and they may also exert their effect indirectly through their influence on any of the internal, mnemonic cues. The theory can explain successfully the bases or implications of JOLs from a broad perspective, but it can not state the way how individuals make JOLs. Meanwhile, some researchers proposed encoding fluency and retrieval fluency to explain and examine their effects on JOLs during leaning process, which are helpful for researchers to probe into the psychological mechanism of JOLs deeply. In addition, some research focused on children with learning disabilities (LD) found that, compared to their normal peers, lower metacognitive accuracy was one of their important characteristics. However, most of research was descriptive, and can not provide suitable targeted direction for educational practices. According to these, the present study would examine the different effects of different fluency cues on children with LD to find their specific influencial patterns. Twenty children with LD and twenty normal children selected from a common primary school (Mean age = 10.5 years) participated in the experiment to make item-by-item JOLs for paired words presented using a PC. This study examined the effects of encoding fluency (inferred from self-paced study time) and retrieval fluency (inferred from the latency of pre-JOL retrieval) on JOLs, wihch were elicited either immediately after study or after a short or longer delay. Results showed that: (1) Children with LD mainly utilized retrieval fluency to make JOL across immediate and delay conditions. However, for normal children, it showed some distinction between encoding and retrieval fluency as potential cues for JOL across immediate and delay conditions. (2)As a kind of JOLs cues, encoding fluency was more valid than retrieval fluency with immediate JOLs condition, whereas retrieval fluency validity increased with JOLs delay. Based on the above all results, normal children's JOLs are based on the flexible and adaptive utilization of different mnemonic cues according to their relative validity in predicting their final recall, whereas the cues children's with LD JOLs based on are not comparably flexible.

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue-font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall.

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively change memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study was designed to explore whether the reactivity effect transfers to subsequent learning of new information. Participants studied two blocks of words (Experiment 1) or related word pairs (Experiments 2 & 3). In Block 1, participants in the experimental (JOL) group made a JOL while studying each item, whereas the control (no-JOL) group did not make item-by-item JOLs. Then both groups studied Block 2, in which they did not make JOLs, and finally, they took a test on Blocks 1 and 2. Across Experiments 1 −3, the results showed superior Block 1 test performance in the JOL than in the no-JOL group, demonstrating a positive reactivity effect. Critically, there was minimal difference in Block 2 test performance between the two groups, implying little transfer of the positive reactivity effect to subsequent learning of new information. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that the reactivity effect still failed to transfer even when participants explicitly appreciated the benefits of making JOLs. Educational implications are discussed.

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem - Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja - Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Judgments of Learning (JOLs) have been repeatedly shown to be reactive on memory. However, the specific processes underlying JOL reactivity differ based on the type of stimuli participants study and the method by which their memory is assessed. Recently, item-specific encoding has been proposed as a mechanism explaining JOL reactivity on word list learning. To test this account, participants studied categorised and uncategorised word lists (Experiments 1A/1B) or DRM lists (Experiment 2) while providing item-level JOLs, global JOLs, or silently reading each word. Across experiments, item-level JOLs improved correct memory for all list types but only when recognition testing was used (Experiments 1B and 2). Separately, global JOLs improved free-recall of categorised but not uncategorised lists (Experiment 1A) but were non-reactive on correct recognition (Experiments 1B and 2). Finally, Experiment 2 found that global but not item-level JOLs increased false recognition in the DRM false memory illusion. Taken together, when JOLs are elicited separately for each word, they improve memory via item-specific processes. However, when JOLs emphasise list-wise relations (e.g., global JOLs), reactivity may instead reflect a relational encoding process.

Previous studies have suggested that perceptual information regarding to-be-remembered words in the study phase affects the accuracy of judgement of learning (JOL). However, few have investigated whether the perceptual information in the JOL phase influences JOL accuracy. This study examined the influence of cue word perceptual information in the JOL phase on immediate and delayed JOL accuracy through changes in cue word font size. In Experiment 1, large-cue word pairs had significantly higher mean JOL magnitude than small-cue word pairs in immediate JOLs and higher relative accuracy than small-cue pairs in delayed JOLs, but font size had no influence on recall performance. Experiment 2 increased the JOL time, and mean JOL magnitude did not reliably differ for large-cue compared with small-cue pairs in immediate JOLs. However, the influence on relative accuracy still existed in delayed JOLs. Experiment 3 increased the familiarity of small-cue words in the delayed JOL phase by adding a lexical decision task. The results indicated that cue word font size no longer affected relative accuracy in delayed JOLs. The three experiments in our study indicated that the perceptual information regarding cue words in the JOL phase affects immediate and delayed JOLs in different ways.

When people try to learn new information (e.g., in a school setting), they often have multiple opportunities to study the material. One of the most important things to know is whether people adjust their study behavior on the basis of past success so as to increase their overall level of learning (for example, by emphasizing information they have not yet learned). Monitoring their learning is a key part of being able to make those kinds of adjustments. We used a recognition memory task to replicate prior research showing that memory for past test outcomes influences later monitoring, as measured by judgments of learning (JOLs; confidence that the material has been learned), but also to show that subjective confidence in whether the test answer and the amount of time taken to restudy the items also have independent effects on JOLs. We also show that there are individual differences in the effects of test accuracy and test confidence on JOLs, showing that some but not all people use past test experiences to guide monitoring of their new learning. Monitoring learning is therefore a complex process of considering multiple cues, and some people attend to those cues more effectively than others. Improving the quality of monitoring performance and learning could lead to better study behaviors and better learning. An individual's memory of past test performance (MPT) is often cited as the primary cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) following test experience during multi-trial learning tasks (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007; 2008). We used an associative recognition task to evaluate MPT-related phenomena, because performance monitoring, as measured by recognition test confidence judgments (CJs), is fallible and varies in accuracy across persons. The current study used multilevel regression models to show the simultaneous and independent influences of multiple cues on Trial 2 JOLs, in addition to performance accuracy (the typical measure of MPT in cued-recall experiments). These cues include recognition CJs, perceived recognition fluency, and Trial 2 study time allocation (an index of reprocessing fluency). Our results expand the scope of MPT-related phenomena in recognition memory testing to show independent effects of recognition test accuracy and CJs on second-trial JOLs, while also demonstrating individual differences in the effects of these cues on JOLs (as manifested in significant random effects for those regression effects in the model). The effect of study time on second-trial JOLs controlling on other variables, including Trial 1 recognition memory accuracy, also demonstrates that second-trial encoding behavior influence JOLs in addition to MPT.

What guides the judgment of learning: Memory or heuristics? An event-related potential study