Eventual memory performance is predicted more accurately when a person's judgment of learning (JOL) is delayed until shortly after studying an item than when made immediately after studying the item. According to the transfer-appropriate-monitoring hypothesis, this delayed- JOL effect arises because of the contextual similarity between the cue for the JOL and the cue for the memory test. In a paired-associate learning experiment, delayed JOLs were cued by the stimulus alone or by the stimulus-response pair, and the eventual test was associative recognition of stimulus-response pairs. Recognition of stimulus-response pairs was predicted more accurately when JOLs had been cued by the stimulus alone than when they had been cued by the stimulus-response pair, even though the latter was more similar than the former to the cue for the recognition test. Implications of these results, especially the lack of support for the class of theories emphasizing transfer-appropriate monitoring, are discussed for theories of the accuracy of JOLs.

Method

In these experiments, participants are given English word pairs to learn (i.e. dog-table). They are asked after each word pair: "how confident are you that in about ten minutes from now you will be able to recognize the second of the item when prompted with the first? (0 = definitely won't recognize, 20 = 20% sure, 40 ..., 60 ..., 80 ..., 100 = definitely will recognize). These ratings (JOLs) were given either right after the word pair was presented or after the entire block of word pairs were presented. These ratings were prompted with either just the cue word (i.e. dog, the first word of each pair) or both the words (stimulus-response pairing). After all word-pairs were studied, a 10-minute break was given. Participants were then measured by marking which word-pairings they recognized (0 = not studied, 20 = 20 % sure studied, 40 ..., 60 ..., 80 ..., 100 = definitely studied).

Basics:

1. What are the independent variables in this experiment?
   1. For each variable, label the level of measurement.
   2. For each variable, label the method of data collection.
2. What are the dependent variables in this experiment?
   1. For each variable, label the level of measurement.
3. What type of research design is this experiment?
   1. Why?
4. Who is the potential population for this study?
5. Examining your results from the code section, which group had the best model fit?
6. What is a potential null hypothesis for this experiment?
7. What is a potential research hypothesis for this experiment?
8. List at least two influences on power.
9. Give an example of type 1 error based on this study (do not just define, explain in context how it might have happened here).

Data Exploration/Charts:

1. Looking at your JOL/cue type bar chart - which group appears to be performing the best at recognizing the words shown?