The effect of delayed judgments of learning on retention

Abstract

Evidence is mixed concerning whether delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) enhance learning and if so, whether their benefit is similar to retrieval practice. One potential explanation for the mixed findings is the truncated search hypothesis, which states that not all delayed JOLs lead to a full-blown covert retrieval attempt. In three paired-associate learning experiments, we examined the effect of delayed JOLs on later recall by comparing them to conditions of restudy, overt retrieval, and various other delayed JOL conditions. In Experiment 1, after an initial study phase, subjects either restudied word pairs, practiced overt retrieval, or made cue-only or cue-target delayed JOLs. In Experiments 2a and 2b, where conditions were manipulated within-subjects, subjects either restudied word pairs, practiced overt retrieval, made cue-only delayed JOLs, made cue-only delayed JOLs followed by a yes/no retrieval question or, in another condition, by an overt retrieval prompt. The final cued recall tests were delayed by two days. In Experiment 1, recall after cue-only delayed JOLs did not reliably differ from recall after overt retrieval or restudy. In Experiments 2a and 2b, delayed JOLs consistently produced poorer recall relative to overt retrieval. Furthermore, reaction times for delayed JOLs were shorter relative to delayed JOLs paired with overt retrieval prompts. We conclude that only some delayed JOLs elicit covert retrieval attempts, a pattern supporting the truncated search hypothesis.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-021-09260-0.

Keywords: Covert retrieval; Delayed judgments of learning; Reactivity; Truncated search.

Fig. 1

An example trial from the practice phase for each condition in Experiment 1 (a) and in Experiments 2a and 2b (b)

Fig. 2

Final recall performance in Experiment 1. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals

Fig. 3

Final recall performance in Experiments 2a (a) and 2b (b). Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals