Similarity between the Cue for Judgments of Learning (JOL) and the Cue for Test Is Not the Primary Determinant of JOL Accuracy

Abstract

Eventual memory performance is predicted more accurately when a person's judgment of learning (JOL) is delayed until shortly after studying an item than when made immediately after studying the item. According to the transfer-appropriate-monitoring hypothesis, this delayed-JOL effect arises because of the contextual similarity between the cue for the JOL and the cue for the memory test. In three paired-associate learning experiments, delayed JOLs were cued by the stimulus alone or by the stimulus-response pair, and the eventual test was associative recognition of stimulus-response pairs. Recognition of stimulus-response pairs was predicted more accurately when JOLs had been cued by the stimulus alone than when they had been cued by the stimulus-response pair, even though the latter was more similar than the former to the cue for the recognition test. Implications of these results, especially the lack of support for the class of theories emphasizing transfer-appropriate monitoring, are discussed for theories of the accuracy of JOLs.