助记线索对自我和他人回忆成绩的影响及元认知监测

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.003

心理与行为研究 ›› 2024, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (3): 305-311.DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.003

助记线索对自我和他人回忆成绩的影响及元认知监测

贾宁¹, 陈星^1,2, 代景华³

1. 河北师范大学教育学院，石家庄 050024;
2. 石家庄市藁城区第八中学，石家庄 052160;
3. 河北中医药大学人文管理系，石家庄 050200

收稿日期:2022-09-23 出版日期:2024-05-20 发布日期:2024-05-20
通讯作者: 代景华，E-mail：daijinghuapsy@163.com
基金资助:
国家社科基金后期资助项目(22FJKB019)。

Effects of Memory Cues for Oneself or Others on Recall Performance and Metacognitive Monitoring

JIA Ning¹, CHEN Xing^1,2, DAI Jinghua³

1. College of Education, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024;
2. Shijiazhuang Gaocheng District No. 8 Middle School, Shijiazhuang 052160;
3. Department of Humanities and Management, Hebei University of Chinese Medicine, Shijiazhuang 050200

Received:2022-09-23 Online:2024-05-20 Published:2024-05-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究以大学生为被试，通过设置二人结组记忆与元认知监测任务，考察了助我线索(实验1)和助他线索(实验2)对回忆成绩的影响及元认知监测。结果显示：(1)生成助我线索和助他线索，编码强度是相同的，但个体生成的助我线索和助他线索都对自我回忆更为有效；(2)相对于助我线索，助他线索更能提高他人回忆成绩；(3)个体的自我监测较为准确，但监测他人出现了高估。结果表明：第一，研究提出并证实了助记线索影响回忆成绩的双过程假说。第二，个体生成线索后主要是以编码流畅性为线索进行元认知监测，导致自我监测准确性较高，而监测他人的准确性不高。

关键词: 助记线索, 回忆成绩, 元认知监测

Abstract: This study investigated the effect of cue generation, both for oneself and for others, on recall performance and metacognitive monitoring within a two-person group memory task. Participants engaged in two experiments. In Experiment 1, they generated mnemonic cues for their own use, while in Experiment 2, they generated cues for the partner. Following cue generation, participants were asked to predict their own and their partners’ recall performance based on the cues. The main findings revealed that: 1) self-generated cues significantly enhanced participants’ own recall performance more than those generated for others, 2) cues tailored for others were more effective in boosting recall compared to self-generated cues, and 3) the participants showed greater accuracy in monitoring their own recall performance, whereas they tended to overestimate their partners’ recall performance. In conclusion, firstly, although the encoding process remains consistent regardless of cue recipient, the efficacy of cues in enhancing recall varies based on their origin, supporting the two-process hypothesis of mnemonic cue influence on recall. Secondly, after generating cues, individuals tend to rely heavily on encoding fluency for metacognitive monitoring, resulting in higher accuracy in self-monitoring but lower accuracy in monitoring others.

Key words: memory cues, recall performance, metacognitive monitoring

中图分类号:

B842

贾宁, 陈星, 代景华. 助记线索对自我和他人回忆成绩的影响及元认知监测[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 305-311.

JIA Ning, CHEN Xing, DAI Jinghua. Effects of Memory Cues for Oneself or Others on Recall Performance and Metacognitive Monitoring[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(3): 305-311.

参考文献

代景华, 梁娇, 贾宁. (2017). 常识问题任务中理解他人的加工机制. 应用心理学, 23(1), 23–30, 22.
贾宁, 白学军, 沈德立. (2006). 学习判断准确性的研究方法. 心理发展与教育, 22(3), 103–109.
Baer, C., Malik, P., & Odic, D. (2021). Are children’s judgments of another’s accuracy linked to their metacognitive confidence judgments? Metacognition and Learning, 16(2), 485–516.
Bui, Y., Pyc, M. A., & Bailey, H. (2018). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “Displaced-JOL effect”. Memory, 26(6), 771–783.
Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS One, 5(6), e10729.
Fraundorf, S. H., & Benjamin, A. S. (2014). Knowing the crowd within: Metacognitive limits on combining multiple judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 73(1), 17–38.
Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 137–154.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1133–1145.
Kuo, M. L. A., & Hooper, S. (2004). The effects of visual and verbal coding mnemonics on learning Chinese characters in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 23–34.
Lee Saber, J., & Johnson, R. D. (2008). Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater: Verbal repetition, mnemonics, and active learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 207–216.
Nairne, J. S. (2002). The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory, 10(5–6), 389–395.
Selmeczy, D., & Dobbins, I. G. (2017). Ignoring memory hints: The stubborn influence of environmental cues on recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(9), 1448–1469.
Tullis, J. G. (2018). Predicting others’ knowledge: Knowledge estimation as cue utilization. Memory & Cognition, 46(8), 1360–1375.
Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2015a). Cueing others’ memories. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 634–646.
Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2015b). Cue generation: How learners flexibly support future retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 43(6), 922–938.
Tullis, J. G., Benjamin, A. S., & Ross, B. H. (2014). The reminding effect: Presentation of associates enhances memory for related words in a list. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1526–1540.
Tullis, J. G., & Finley, J. R. (2018). Self-generated memory cues: Effective tools for learning, training, and remembering. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 179–186.
Tullis, J. G., & Finley, J. R. (2021) What characteristics make self-generated memory cues effective over time? Memory, 29(10), 1308–1319.
Tullis, J. G., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2017). Predicting others’ memory performance: The accuracy and bases of social metacognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 124–137.
Tullis, J. G., & Maddox, G. B. (2020). Self-reported use of retrieval practice varies across age and domain. Metacognition and Learning, 15(2), 129–154.
Vesonder, G. T., & Voss, J. F. (1985). On the ability to predict one’s own responses while learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 363–376.
Zhang, D., & Tullis, J. G. (2021). Personal reminders: Self-generated reminders boost memory more than normatively related ones. Memory & Cognition, 49(4), 645–659.

[1]	张旭亮, 谢琅, 殷舒琦, 余可可, 王瑞明. 暴力词与情绪词在词汇特征和认知加工中的差异[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 289-296.
[2]	巫金根, 郭梅华, 于棋, 王冰然, 程小云, 闫国利. 习得年龄和累计频率对儿童汉字识别的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 297-304.
[3]	赵欣璐, 林俊菲, 刘拓. 道德概念中的水平空间隐喻效应探究：来自行为和ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 312-319.
[4]	马燕, 王振宏. 道德自我知觉对欺骗行为的影响：解释水平的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 39-45.
[5]	刘思远, 朱麟, 王瑞冰, 徐楚言, 王芸萍, 刘聪慧. 道德决策中是否存在方言效应？[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 31-38.
[6]	姚远青, 郭易安, 李春梅, 吴亚楠, 石雷, 赵广平. 几何图形社会角色隐喻的映射机制：行为和ERPs证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 23-30.
[7]	付春野, 吕勇. 预期与时间注意对视觉感知的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 15-22.
[8]	钱程, 赵越, 牛溪溪, 顾佳灿, 王爱君. 三维空间深度位置上情绪面孔对返回抑制的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 8-14.
[9]	郭梅华, 兰泽波, 巫金根, 李赛男, 吴俊杰, 闫国利. 汉语词切分和字号对阅读知觉广度的影响：眼动的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(1): 1-7.
[10]	陈汝淇, 包亚倩, 黄林洁琼, 李兴珊. 中文阅读中词语加工与眼动控制整合模型简介[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 725-735.
[11]	梁菲菲, 冯琳琳, 刘瑛, 王昶浩, 王洁. 词素位置概率信息在中文双字词识别中的作用：词汇语境多样性的调节[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 736-743.
[12]	于秒, 王文娣, 陈晓霄. 汉语“N的V”结构加工的韵律制约[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 744-750.
[13]	陈婉婷, 张逸飞, 何清华. 准确性提示降低错误信息的分享意愿[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 751-759.
[14]	马大付, 秦春影, 喻晓锋, 何催. 项目区分度指标在属性多水平和混合计分项目下的组卷研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(6): 760-769.
[15]	刘蕾, 李亚楠, 牛若愚, 于文婷, 陈玉雪, 刘莹. 踏步任务下动作同步的神经基础[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(5): 600-607.

助记线索对自我和他人回忆成绩的影响及元认知监测

Effects of Memory Cues for Oneself or Others on Recall Performance and Metacognitive Monitoring

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价