ArticleMemory & cognition2018
Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test.Memory & cognition · 2020Pooled it
- The Effect of Sleep Loss on Retrospective Metacognitive Judgements Across Five Cognitive Tests.Journal of sleep research · 2026Trial
- Can written prompts help medical residents to accurately monitor their own communication skills and those of others?Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Trial
- Decision-making trades off learned and perceived information.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Metacognitive Monitoring in Reading Comprehension: Examining the Role of Cognitive Flexibility, Vocabulary, and Fluency in Young Readers.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Making judgments of learning (JOLs) for oneself versus others: A review and proposed model.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Reducing cheap talk? How monetary incentives affect the accuracy of metamemory judgments.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Predicting the memorability of scene pictures: Improved accuracy through one's own experience.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2025Article
- Tulving's (1989) Doctrine of Concordance Revisited.Journal of cognition · 2025Review
- The perceived importance of words in large font guides learning and selective memory.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- The Self-Reference Effect in Metamemory and the Role of Beliefs in This Process.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Confidence judgments interfere with perceptual decision making.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Progressing the Development of a Collaborative Metareasoning Framework: Prospects and Challenges.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- Do Judgments of Learning Impair Recall When Uninformative Cues Are Salient?Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Image Clarity Affects Tip-of-the-Tongue Rates for Faces.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- The Role of Semantic Associations as a Metacognitive Cue in Creative Idea Generation.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Metacognitive Illusions: A Positivity Effect in Judgments of Learning for Older but Not Younger Adults.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Judgments of learning in bilinguals: Does studying in a L2 hinder learning monitoring?PloS one · 2023Article
- On the proposed role of metacognition in environment learning: recommendations for research.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Review
- The effect of perceptual processing fluency and value on metacognition and remembering.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is much evidence that metacognitive judgments, such as people's predictions of their future memory performance (judgments of learning, JOLs), are inferences based on cues and heuristics. However, relatively little is known about whether and when people integrate multiple cues in one metacognitive judgment or focus on a single cue without integrating further information. The current set of experiments systematically addressed whether and to what degree people integrate multiple extrinsic and intrinsic cues in JOLs. Experiment 1 varied two cues: number of study presentations (1 vs. 2) and font size (18 point vs. 48 point). Results revealed that people integrated both cues in their JOLs. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the two word characteristics concreteness (abstract vs. concrete) and emotionality (neutral vs. emotional) were integrated in JOLs. Experiment 3 showed that people integrated all four cues in their JOLs when manipulated simultaneously. Finally, Experiment 4 confirmed integration of three cues that varied on a continuum rather than in two easily distinguishable levels. These results demonstrate that people have a remarkable capacity to integrate multiple cues in metacognitive judgments. In addition, our findings render an explanation of cue effects on JOLs in terms of demand characteristics implausible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29327336What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.