Interference Mode Fok Judgment And Jol Judgment Experimental Study Of The Theoretical Hypothesis

Study on the theoretical base of FOKs and JOLsin an interferencc paradigmFOKs,judgments made by' subjects regaxding the likelihood of futurerecognition after recall. JOLs,judgments made by subjects at the end of aleaming triaI regarding the likelihood of remembering the acquired informationon a subsequent memory test .FOKs differ from JOLs in that FOKs axe madeafter recall has been attempted .and they are usually made on1y on non-recalleditems .JOLs are typically made befOre a recall attempt on all items,andpedicipants are usually asked to predict recall perfOrmance.Four hypotheses to FOKs and JOLs are oatlined .competition hyPothesis,accessibility hypothesis,cue familiarity hypothesis and taxget retrievabilityhypothesis.The purpose of the present research was to investigate the theoreticalbase of FOKs and JOLs in an interference paradigm.An interference paradigm isparticulaxly useful for investigating accesSibility versus competition as a basis fOrmetamemory judgments because these hypotheses make opposite predictions inseveral interference conditions. The accessibility hypothesis assumes the moreneighboring concepts activated by the test cue,the higher the feeling of Anowingand judgment of learning .In contrast,the competition hypothesis assumes thatfeelings of knowing and judgment of ledring are sensitive to comPetitionbetWeen neighboring concepts,and it predicts that the fewer neighboringconcepts activated by the cue,the higher the feeling of knowing and judgment ofleaming. The paxadigm is also relevam to cue familiarity hypothesis a-nd taxgetretrievability hypothesis. Cue familiarity hypothesis proposes an increase inmetamemory judgments with increases in the number of exposures to acue.Target retrievability hypothesis assumes that FOKs and JOLs are based on- 3 -the memorial strength of the targets. Experiments were conducted on 586computer.Subjects made both feeling of knowing (FOKs) ratings a-nd judgmentsof learning (JOLs) for first-1iSt responses after learning different types of secondlists.The first l2 pairs formed an A-B list,and the next l2 pairs fOrmed an A-B'list(B' is the associated words of B),an A-C list(only the cue repeated),a D-Blist(only the target repeated), or anE-F liSt(neither element repeated) .Themateria1s were presented to subjects in a random order that maintained thefirst-list-second--list distinction .the procedure included flve phases f (l)Wordopairs 1earning fSubjects were instructed to leam tWo lists of pairs of items,andwere told that after learning When later Presented with the left item of the first list,they cou1d make JOLjudgment. (2) JOLjudgmentt The cues of the first list werepresented randoml}',subjects were asked to make a JOL judgment on a scalefrom l to 6.(3)Cued recall .Subects were given the cue items of the first list andasked to write down the taxget words.(4))FOK judgment;The cues were presentedand subjects were asked to make a FOK judgment on a scale from l to 6. (5)Forced--choice recognition tests fsix altematives were used,the target was one ofthe alternatives and was placed in a random position with respect to the otheroptions.The research had two experiments f Experiment l investigated What was thetheoretical base of FOKs and JOLs .hi this experiment,64 undergraduates wererandom1y assigned to a condition of a 4(interference condition) X 2(type ofrating )mixed design. lnterference condition was between-subect variable,Typeof rating was within-subject variable.The dependent variables were subects'scores on rating scales and the proportion correct on recall and recognition of list1responses in experimentl .ExPeriment 2 heer investigated the theoretical baseof FOKs.In this experiment,64 undergraduates were randomly assigned to a- 4 -condition of a 4(interference condition) X l design. The dependent variableswere the same as in experiment l .The judgments and the results of the recall wererecorded by...