Backward-associated word pairs produce a foresight bias: judgments of learning are inflated relative to actual recall when the dominant association runs from target to cue¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For backward pairs, predicted recall (74%) was markedly inflated relative to actual recall (58%) on the first study–test cycle, while forward-pair JOLs matched recall. → Koriat 2006 q3 i? Purely a posteriori pairs yielded a marked illusion of competence, with JOLs (67.16) far exceeding recall (43.42). → Koriat 2006 (2)

Evidence¶

Koriat 2006¶

Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners' sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 959-972. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193244

q3 · i? · causal · r1

First study–test cycle of Experiment 1, 24 English-speaking undergraduates studying 48 paired associates with asymmetric associations. The reported t test shows the illusion of competence for backward pairs only: "predicted recall (74%) markedly inflated, in comparison with actual recall (58%)".

"For the forward pairs, the participants' predictions closely matched their actual recall [ t(23) 0.17, n.s.], whereas for the backward pairs, there was an illusion of competence, with predicted recall (74%) markedly inflated, in comparison with actual recall (58%) [t(23) 2.96, p .01]."

Koriat 2006 (2)¶

Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners' sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 959-972. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193244

q3 · i? · causal · r2

First block of Experiment 2's test group (16 Hebrew-speaking undergraduates) with purely a posteriori pairs that appear related when shown together despite zero a priori association; "JOLs and recall averaged 67.16 and 43.42, respectively".

"The a posteriori pairs, in contrast, yielded a marked illusion of competence: JOLs and recall averaged 67.16 and 43.42, respectively [ t(15) 4.33, p .001]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Age did not interact with associative relatedness or effective encoding-strategy use in predicting JOLs, indicating no age differences in the use of these two sources of information when making judgments of learning — related
• The foresight bias has behavioral consequences: learners allocate similar study time to backward and forward pairs despite markedly lower recall for backward pairs — related
• Delaying judgments of learning after study markedly reduces, but does not eliminate, the foresight bias — related
• Repeated study–test practice reduces the foresight bias for backward pairs, with the illusion of competence disappearing by the fourth presentation — related
• Judgments of learning add no new self-assessment information beyond performance estimates for single tasks — related