England Benjamin D, Ortegren Francesca R, Serra Michael J
Department of Psychology, Missouri Western State University.
Psychology Department, University of Southern Indiana.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Dec;43(12):1898-1908. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000420. Epub 2017 May 15.
Framing metacognitive judgments of learning (JOLs) in terms of the likelihood of forgetting rather than remembering consistently yields a counterintuitive outcome: The mean of participants' forget-framed JOLs is often higher (after reverse-scoring) than the mean of their remember-framed JOLs, suggesting greater confidence in memory. In the present experiments, we tested 2 competing explanations for this pattern of results. The optimistic-anchoring hypothesis suggests that forget-framed JOLs are associated with greater optimism about memory than are remember-framed JOLs, which leads to their greater magnitude. The differential-scaling hypothesis suggests that forget-framed JOLs and remember-framed JOLs will often be distributed differently across the JOL scale, resulting in means that also often differ. Participants in 3 experiments studied simple memory materials and made JOLs predicting their memory performance for those items. They made their JOLs in terms of either the likelihood of remembering or forgetting. In contrast to the optimistic-anchoring hypothesis, the mean of participants' forget-framed JOLs was unaffected by information concerning the supposed difficulty of the task (Experiment 1), was lower than for remember-framed JOLs in a task selected to evoke high JOLs (Experiment 2), and demonstrated equivalent confidence in memory when participants were restricted to a yes-no binary response (Experiment 3). In support of the differential-scaling hypothesis, participants' forget-framed JOLs were consistently symmetrically distributed across the JOL scale, resulting in a mean at the center of the judgment scale that was often higher than that for remember-framed JOLs. Framing therefore affects how participants scale their JOLs, not their confidence in their memory. (PsycINFO Database Record
将学习的元认知判断（JOLs）构建为遗忘的可能性而非记忆的可能性，始终会产生一个违反直觉的结果：参与者以遗忘为框架的JOLs的平均值（经过反向计分后）往往高于以记忆为框架的JOLs的平均值，这表明对记忆更有信心。在本实验中，我们对这一结果模式测试了两种相互竞争的解释。乐观锚定假设表明，与以记忆为框架的JOLs相比，以遗忘为框架的JOLs与对记忆更乐观的态度相关联，这导致了它们更大的数值。差异量表假设表明，以遗忘为框架的JOLs和以记忆为框架的JOLs在JOL量表上的分布往往不同，导致平均值也常常不同。3个实验中的参与者学习了简单的记忆材料，并做出JOLs来预测他们对这些项目的记忆表现。他们根据记忆或遗忘的可能性做出JOLs。与乐观锚定假设相反，参与者以遗忘为框架的JOLs的平均值不受关于任务假定难度的信息影响（实验1），在一个被选择以引发高JOLs的任务中低于以记忆为框架的JOLs（实验2），并且当参与者被限制在是或否的二元反应时，表现出对记忆的同等信心（实验3）。为支持差异量表假设，参与者以遗忘为框架的JOLs在JOL量表上始终呈对称分布，导致判断量表中心的平均值往往高于以记忆为框架的JOLs。因此，构建框架影响参与者对其JOLs的量表方式，而非他们对记忆的信心。（PsycINFO数据库记录）
