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
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

Ning JIA¹, Xing CHEN¹^,², Jinghua DAI*^,³()

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
Contact: Jinghua DAI

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

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.

Ning JIA, Xing CHEN, Jinghua DAI. 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.

图/表 5

参考文献 0

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

因变量	自变量	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
回忆成绩	自我的“助我线索”	8.82	1.13	13.02	<0.001	2.37
	他人的“助我线索”	5.36	1.71
JOL等级	自我监测₃₀	8.11	1.12	6.34	<0.001	1.16
	监测他人₃₀	6.33	1.57
绝对准确性	自我监测₁₅	0.15	0.11	−3.00	0.006	0.54
	监测他人₁₅	0.56	0.74

因变量	自变量	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
回忆成绩	自我的“助我线索”	8.82	1.13	13.02	<0.001	2.37
	他人的“助我线索”	5.36	1.71
JOL等级	自我监测₃₀	8.11	1.12	6.34	<0.001	1.16
	监测他人₃₀	6.33	1.57
绝对准确性	自我监测₁₅	0.15	0.11	−3.00	0.006	0.54
	监测他人₁₅	0.56	0.74

因变量	自变量	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
回忆成绩	自我的“助他线索”	8.89	1.37	6.99	<0.001	1.27
	他人的“助他线索”	6.49	1.54
JOL等级	自我监测₃₀	8.05	1.41	6.82	<0.001	1.24
	监测他人₃₀	6.87	1.57
绝对准确性	自我监测₁₅	0.13	0.09	−2.13	0.042	0.40
	监测他人₁₅	0.23	0.22

因变量	自变量	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
回忆成绩	自我的“助他线索”	8.89	1.37	6.99	<0.001	1.27
	他人的“助他线索”	6.49	1.54
JOL等级	自我监测₃₀	8.05	1.41	6.82	<0.001	1.24
	监测他人₃₀	6.87	1.57
绝对准确性	自我监测₁₅	0.13	0.09	−2.13	0.042	0.40
	监测他人₁₅	0.23	0.22

助记线索类型	n	自己生成₁₅		他人生成₁₅
助记线索类型	n	M	SD	M	SD
助我线索(实验1)	30	8.82	1.13	5.37	1.72
助他线索(实验2)	30	8.89	1.37	6.49	1.54

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

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 0

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

助记线索类型	n	自我监测准确性₁₅		监测他人准确性₁₅
助记线索类型	n	M	SD	M	SD
助我线索(实验1)	30	0.15	0.11	0.56	0.74
助他线索(实验2)	30	0.13	0.09	0.23	0.22