![Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning [An article from: Journal of Memory and Language]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/noimage.jpg)
Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning [An article from: Journal of Memory and Language]
Book Details
Author(s)P. Scheck, M. Meeter, T.O. Nelson
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000RR0THK
ISBN-13978B000RR0TH2
AvailabilityAvailable for download now
Sales Rank11,422,840
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Journal of Memory and Language, published by Elsevier in 2004. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
This research explored the absolute accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs), wherein absolute accuracy pertains to how well the magnitude of the participant's predictions of recall correspond to his or her subsequent recall. The Anchoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does not change systematically with item difficulty; analogous to a broken clock that is correct twice a day, the absolute magnitude of JOLs may be accurate by chance and not because of any inherent predictive ability. Alternatively, the Monitoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does vary systematically with item difficulty. The Dual-Factors hypothesis proposes that the absolute accuracy of JOLs is affected by some combination of monitoring and anchoring. In four experiments, participants studied a list of paired-associates with a high, medium or low normative proportion of recall, then made JOLs for every item, and subsequently had a recall test. The absolute accuracy of JOLs was investigated both for immediate JOLs and for delayed JOLs. The results were consistent with the Monitoring Hypothesis for delayed JOLs and with the Dual-Factors Hypothesis for immediate JOLs.
Description:
This research explored the absolute accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs), wherein absolute accuracy pertains to how well the magnitude of the participant's predictions of recall correspond to his or her subsequent recall. The Anchoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does not change systematically with item difficulty; analogous to a broken clock that is correct twice a day, the absolute magnitude of JOLs may be accurate by chance and not because of any inherent predictive ability. Alternatively, the Monitoring Hypothesis proposes that the magnitude of JOLs does vary systematically with item difficulty. The Dual-Factors hypothesis proposes that the absolute accuracy of JOLs is affected by some combination of monitoring and anchoring. In four experiments, participants studied a list of paired-associates with a high, medium or low normative proportion of recall, then made JOLs for every item, and subsequently had a recall test. The absolute accuracy of JOLs was investigated both for immediate JOLs and for delayed JOLs. The results were consistent with the Monitoring Hypothesis for delayed JOLs and with the Dual-Factors Hypothesis for immediate JOLs.
