Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40707801›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Manipulating belief partially remedies the metamemory expectancy illusion in schema-based source monitoring.

Marie Luisa Schaper, Ute J Bayen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marie Luisa SchaperInstitute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. marie.schaper@hhu.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8912-8569
Ute J BayenInstitute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0062-3155

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metamemory illusions (i.e., false predictions of memory) are thought to arise from false a priori beliefs or from experiences made during study, such as processing fluency. The aim of the current research was to isolate the contribution of belief to metamemory by testing whether a correction of false beliefs can remedy a metamemory illusion. The authors focus on schema-based source monitoring, in which people show a metamemory expectancy illusion (e.g., Schaper et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470-496, 2019a). At study, people predict better source memory for items from expected sources (e.g., toothbrush in a bathroom), whereas actual source memory is better for items from unexpected sources (e.g., shampoo in a kitchen) or unaffected by expectations. In two source-monitoring experiments (N = 120/121), the authors tested whether the expectancy illusion could be remedied by correcting a priori belief. Participants studied items from expected and unexpected sources and made item-wise metamemory predictions about source memory. In both experiments, a manipulation to correct belief attenuated the expectancy illusion compared to a control group, but not to full remedy. Experiment 2 further revealed two distinct theoretical mechanisms underlying the partial persistence of the metamemory illusion: A partial inferential deficit, indicated by some participants failing to correct their belief, and a partial utilization deficit, indicated by participants failing to adequately use a corrected belief in metamemory judgments. The authors discuss competing influences of beliefs and experiences in metamemory judgment formation.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalIllusionsMetacognitionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultBeliefJudgments of sourceMetamemorySchemasSource monitoring

Identifiers

PMID40707801
PMCPMC12957054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.