Anchoring-and-adjustment explains the underconfidence-with-practice effect, with JOLs anchored between 30 and 50% correct recall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Scheck and Nelson (2005) hypothesized JOLs form a psychological anchor between 30 and 50% of correct recall, explaining why overconfidence with practice shifts to underconfidence. → Bol L and Hacker DJ 2012

Evidence¶

Bol L and Hacker DJ 2012¶

Bol L and Hacker DJ (2012) Calibration research: where do we go from here? Front. Psychology 3:229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00229

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Narrative review attributing to Scheck and Nelson (2005) the hypothesis that "people form a psychological anchor for their JOLs somewhere between 30 and 50% of correct recall," used to explain the underconfidence-with-practice effect. No effect sizes are printed.

"Scheck and Nelson (2005) hypothesized that people form a psychological anchor for their JOLs somewhere between 30 and 50% of correct recall and adjust their JOLs either upwards or downwards based on whether performance is above or below this band."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delayed JOL bias: multiple text readers are underconfident, rereaders overconfident at one day, and single readers overconfident at one week — related
• Calibration of JOLs shifts toward underconfidence across learning cycles for action phrases under both verbal and enactive encoding, without first-cycle overconfidence — related
• JOL magnitudes decline across successive lists in both JOL groups, reflecting learners' belief that recall decreases with continued new learning — related
• The now-self functions as an anchor in HPT: participants began in now-self and frequently returned to it — related