Confidence ratings are better predictors of future performance than delayed judgments of learning.

What is the best way to predict future memory performance? The intuitive answer is through judgments of learning (JOLs), in which people estimate how likely they are to remember something in the future. Recent theory, however, suggests that a retrospective confidence rating made just after a retrieval attempt might be a better predictor in some situations. In three preregistered experiments, we compared delayed JOLs to confidence ratings. People studied paired associates (E1) or psychology vocabulary terms (E2 & E3), then took a practice cued-recall test in which they made either a JOL or confidence rating after each response. They then took a final test. In Experiment 1, confidence ratings offered higher resolution (metacognitive accuracy) of memory for paired associates than did JOLs, but in Experiments 2 and 3, the advantage of confidence ratings was much smaller. A mini meta-analysis indicated that confidence ratings have a small advantage in predicting future performance over delayed JOLs. We argue that the two judgments rely on similar cues, and that even though JOLs explicitly ask people to predict future performance, doing so does not enhance prediction accuracy. Rather, the presence of a retention interval in the JOL cue adds variability to the judgment process.

Applying confidence accuracy characteristic plots to old/new recognition memory experiments.

Confidence-accuracy characteristic (CAC) plots were developed for use in eyewitness identification experiments, and previous findings show that high confidence indicates high accuracy in all studies of adults with an unbiased lineup. We apply CAC plots to standard old/new recognition memory data by calculating response-based and item-based accuracy, one using false alarms and the other using misses. We use both methods to examine the confidence-accuracy relationship for both correct old responses (hits) and new responses (correct rejections). We reanalysed three sets of published data using these methods and show that the method chosen, as well as the relation of lures to targets, determines the confidence-accuracy relation. Using response-based accuracy for hits, high confidence yields quite high accuracy, and this is generally true with the other methods, especially when lures are unrelated to targets. However, when analyzing correct rejections, the relationship between confidence and accuracy is less pronounced. When lures are semantically related to targets, the various CAC plots show different confidence-accuracy relations. The different methods of calculating CAC plots provide a useful tool in analyzing standard old/new recognition experiments. The results generally accord with unequal-variance signal detection models of recognition memory.

Study preferences for exemplar variability in self-regulated category learning.

Increasing exemplar variability during category learning can enhance classification of novel exemplars from studied categories. Four experiments examined whether participants preferred variability when making study choices with the goal of later classifying novel exemplars. In Experiments 1-3, participants were familiarised with exemplars of birds from multiple categories prior to making category-level assessments of learning and subsequent choices about whether to receive more variability or repetitions of exemplars during study. After study, participants classified novel exemplars from studied categories. The majority of participants showed a consistent preference for variability in their study, but choices were not related to category-level assessments of learning. Experiment 4 provided evidence that study preferences were based primarily on theoretical beliefs in that most participants indicated a preference for variability on questionnaires that did not include prior experience with exemplars. Potential directions for theoretical development and applications to education are discussed.

Recognizing the Presidents: Was Alexander Hamilton President?

Studies over the past 40 years have shown that Americans can recall about half the U.S. presidents. Do people know the presidents even though they are unable to access them for recall? We investigated this question using the powerful cues of a recognition test. Specifically, we tested the ability of 326 online subjects to recognize U.S. presidents when presented with their full names among various types of lures. The hit rate for presidential recognition was .88, well above the proportion produced in free recall but far from perfect. Presidents Franklin Pierce and Chester Arthur were recognized less than 60% of the time. Interestingly, four nonpresidents were falsely recognized at relatively high rates, and Alexander Hamilton was more frequently identified as president than were several actual presidents. Even on a recognition test, knowledge of American presidents is imperfect and prone to error. The false alarm data support the theory that false fame can arise from contextual familiarity.

Positive and negative correlations between confidence and accuracy for the same events in recognition of categorized lists.

Different researchers have reported positive, null, and negative relationships between confidence and accuracy in reports from memory. One possible reason for this paradox is the variety of materials used across experiments, but the two experiments reported in this article show that positive and negative confidence-accuracy correlations can be observed using a single procedure and the same materials. Subjects studied words from semantic categories and then took a recognition test while making confidence ratings. For previously studied items, positive correlations between confidence and accuracy were obtained using three different measures. Yet when confidence-accuracy correlations were assessed for unstudied items from studied categories, the correlations were zero or negative. The critical factors in determining when negative correlations will be found are the similarity of lures to presented items and the type of analysis used. These results indicate that one should be cautious about relying on confidence of recognition when rememberers must decide among highly similar events.

Confidence and memory: assessing positive and negative correlations.

The capacity to learn and remember surely evolved to help animals solve problems in their quest to reproduce and survive. In humans we assume that metacognitive processes also evolved, so that we know when to trust what we remember (i.e., when we have high confidence in our memories) and when not to (when we have low confidence). However this latter feature has been questioned by researchers, with some finding a high correlation between confidence and accuracy in reports from memory and others finding little to no correlation. In two experiments we report a recognition memory paradigm that, using the same materials (categorised lists), permits the study of positive correlations, zero correlations, and negative correlations between confidence and accuracy within the same procedure. We had subjects study words from semantic categories with the five items most frequently produced in norms omitted from the list; later, subjects were given an old/new recognition test and made confidence ratings on their judgements. Although the correlation between confidence and accuracy for studied items was generally positive, the correlation for the five omitted items was negative in some methods of analysis. We pinpoint the similarity between lures and targets as creating inversions between confidence and accuracy in memory. We argue that, while confidence is generally a useful indicant of accuracy in reports from memory, in certain environmental circumstances even adaptive processes can foster illusions of memory. Thus understanding memory illusions is similar to understanding perceptual illusions: Processes that are usually adaptive can go awry under certain circumstances.

Deciding what to replicate: A decision model for replication study selection under resource and knowledge constraints.

Robust scientific knowledge is contingent upon replication of original findings. However, replicating researchers are constrained by resources, and will almost always have to choose one replication effort to focus on from a set of potential candidates. To select a candidate efficiently in these cases, we need methods for deciding which out of all candidates considered would be the most useful to replicate, given some overall goal researchers wish to achieve. In this article we assume that the overall goal researchers wish to achieve is to maximize the utility gained by conducting the replication study. We then propose a general rule for study selection in replication research based on the replication value of the set of claims considered for replication. The replication value of a claim is defined as the maximum expected utility we could gain by conducting a replication of the claim, and is a function of (a) the value of being certain about the claim, and (b) uncertainty about the claim based on current evidence. We formalize this definition in terms of a causal decision model, utilizing concepts from decision theory and causal graph modeling. We discuss the validity of using replication value as a measure of expected utility gain, and we suggest approaches for deriving quantitative estimates of replication value. Our goal in this article is not to define concrete guidelines for study selection, but to provide the necessary theoretical foundations on which such concrete guidelines could be built. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Collective memory for American leaders: Measuring recognition for the names and faces of the US presidents.

Collective memory studies show that Americans remember their presidents in a predictable pattern, which can be described as a serial position curve with an additional spike for Abraham Lincoln. However, all prior studies have tested Americans' collective memory for the presidents by their names. How well do Americans know the faces of the presidents? In two experiments, we investigated presidential facial recognition and compared facial recognition to name recognition. In Experiment 1, an online sample judged whether each of the official portraits of the US presidents and similar portraits of nonpresidents depicted a US president. The facial recognition rate (around 60%) was lower than the name recognition rate in past research (88%), but the overall pattern still fit a serial position curve. Some nonpresidents, such as Alexander Hamilton, were still falsely identified as presidents at high rates. In Experiment 2, a college sample completed a recognition task composed of both faces and names to directly compare the recognition rates. As predicted, subjects recognized the names of the presidents more frequently than the faces. Some presidents were frequently identified by their names but not by their faces (e.g. John Quincy Adams), while others were the opposite (e.g. Calvin Coolidge). Together, our studies show that Americans' memory for the faces of the presidents is somewhat worse than their memory for the names of the presidents but still follows the same pattern, indicating that collective memories contain more than just verbal information.

Replication data collection highlights value in diversity of replication attempts.

Researchers agree that replicability and reproducibility are key aspects of science. A collection of Data Descriptors published in Scientific Data presents data obtained in the process of attempting to replicate previously published research. These new replication data describe published and unpublished projects. The different papers in this collection highlight the many ways that scientific replications can be conducted, and they reveal the benefits and challenges of crucial replication research. The organizers of this collection encourage scientists to reuse the data contained in the collection for their own work, and also believe that these replication examples can serve as educational resources for students, early-career researchers, and experienced scientists alike who are interested in learning more about the process of replication.

Remembering the Leaders of China.

In two studies, we examined Chinese students' memory for the names of the leaders of China. In Study 1, subjects were cued with the names of periods from China's history. Subjects listed as many leaders as possible from each period and put them in the correct ordinal position when they could (see Roediger and DeSoto, 2014). Results showed that within each period, a primacy effect and sometimes a recency effect emerged. Moreover, the average recall probability for leaders within a specific period was a function of the ordinal position of the period. In Study 2, we asked another group of subjects to identify the sources through which they were able to recall each leader. We found that most subjects remembered leaders due to class and coursework. We also found a relation between a leader's recall probability and the amount of information available on that leader on the Internet. Our findings further imply that the serial position function captures the form of collective memory.