ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Making judgments of learning (JOLs) for oneself versus others: A review and proposed model.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Making Judgments of Learning (JOLs) for Others Produces Positive Reactivity.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
A judgment of learning (JOL) refers to an individual's evaluation and prediction of their own learning. Converging evidence suggests that making JOLs is an inferential process, with individuals basing their judgments on a variety of cues that may or may not be diagnostic of future performance. Compared to such JOLs for oneself, considerably less is known about making JOLs for others, but the existing evidence on this topic also supports an inferential-based process. Importantly, although there appears to be substantial overlap regarding the cues used to inform both types of judgments, there are likely cues utilized when forming JOLs for others that are not used when making JOLs for oneself. In the current article, we (1) review the extant literature on JOLs for oneself to understand the characteristics and underlying mechanisms of such judgments; (2) review existing literature regarding JOLs for others, highlighting the similarities and differences between these judgments and those made for oneself; and (3) propose a new model, adapted from Koriat's (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126 (4), 349-370, Koriat, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126:349-370, 1997) cue-utilization framework, to describe how JOLs for others are made. Our new model provides a substantial theoretical contribution to the literature that can inform both basic and applied research focusing on JOLs for others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.