Cue-only JOLs, but not cue–target JOLs, showed the inverted U-shaped JOL–response-time relationship taken as a behavioral signature of covert retrieval (Experiment 1)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A significant quadratic JOL–RT effect emerged overall, and only cue-only JOLs showed the inverted U pattern; slopes below the 50% midpoint differed between JOL types. → Ritter 2025

Evidence¶

Ritter 2025¶

Ritter, C., Hausman, H., Gaschler, R., Tiffin-Richards, S. P., & Kubik, V. (2025). The Forward Effect of Judgements of Learning on Memory and Transfer in Inductive Learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10094-4

q2 · i? · causal · r3

Non-preregistered item-level mixed-effects and piecewise regression analyses of JOL response times in Experiment 1. Below the 50% breakpoint, slopes differed between cue-only and cue–target JOLs, χ2(1) = 5.26, p = .022; only test statistics are printed.

"Collapsing across JOL types, there was a significant quadratic effect, χ2(1) = 34.32, p < .001, establishing nonlinearity in the overall JOL–RT relationship (Fig. 5). As predicted, only cue-only JOLs showed the inverted Upattern."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Experiment 2 replicated the forward effect of cue-only JOLs over restudy with rock categories, and item-by-item feedback did not change the effect — related
• In Experiment 1, cue-only JOLs produced significantly better Phase B memory and transfer than restudy, while overt retrieval's memory advantage over restudy was only marginal — related
• Cue-only JOLs performed similarly to overt retrieval, and cue–target JOLs similarly to restudy, on Phase B memory and transfer (Experiment 1) — related
• Self-reported retrieval use moderated the forward benefit of cue-only JOLs: higher retrieval ratings predicted better Phase B memory and transfer only in the cue-only JOLs condition — related