70 research outputs found
Judgments of learning index relative confidence, not subjective probability
The underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect is a common finding in calibration studies concerned with judgments of learning (JOLs) elicited on a percentage scale. The UWP pattern is present when, in a procedure consisting of multiple study-test cycles, mean scale JOLs underestimate mean recall performance on cycle 2 and beyond. Although this pattern is present both for items recalled and unrecalled on the preceding cycle, to date research has concentrated mostly on the sources of UWP for the latter type of items. The present study aimed at bridging this gap. In three experiments, we examined calibration on the third of three cycles. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated the typical pattern of higher recall and scale JOLs for previously recalled items compared to unrecalled ones. More important, they also revealed that even though the UWP effect was found for both items previously recalled once and twice, its magnitude was greater for the former class of items. Experiments 2 and 3, which employed a binary betting task and a binary 0/100% JOL task, respectively, demonstrated that people can accurately predict future recall for previously recalled items with binary decisions. In both experiments, the UWP effect was absent both for items recalled once and twice. We suggest that the sensitivity of scale JOLs, but not binary judgments, to the number of previous recall successes strengthens the claim of Hanczakowski, Zawadzka, Pasek, and Higham (2013) that scale JOLs reflect confidence in, rather than the subjective probability of, future recall
Right Heart Structural Changes Are Independently Associated with Exercise Capacity in Non-Severe COPD
Water-Soluble Rhenium Phosphine Complexes Incorporating the Ph<sub>2</sub>C(X) Motif (X = O<sup>-</sup>, NH<sup>-</sup>): Structural and Cytotoxicity Studies
Association of serum potassium concentration with mortality and ventricular arrhythmias in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- âŠ