The paradigm provided the dependent measurements of the study, which consisted of the JOLs' magnitude, the JOLs' relative and absolute accuracy, the score of cued-recall, time allocated to restudying the pairs, and correlations between the time of restudy and JOLs between time of restudy and cued-recall.
The magnitude of the JOLs refers to the mean value for the learning judgments.
The mean time spent restudying the pairs was also calculated, presented in seconds, and Pearson correlations between time restudying and magnitude of the JOLs (STA based in the JOLs), and biserial correlations between time restudying and score for cued-recall (STA based on the cued-recall) were made.
13), such that the magnitude of the immediate JOLs was greater (M = 2.
38), such that immediate JOLs were less accurate than delayed JOLs.
Subsequently, in order to test the "monitoring affects control" hypothesis in adults of different ages, memory control was evaluated based on correlational measures (STA based in the JOLs and STA based on cued-recall).
2] = 24), such that young adults who made delayed JOLs had greater STA based in JOL (M = -0.
Young adults who made delayed JOLs presented significantly greater (F[1, 40] = 11.
That is, pairs which were semantically-related received greater JOLs than unrelated pairs.
One unanticipated result was that semantically-related pairs were more easily recovered in the condition of immediate JOLs than delayed.
As there were differences in the score for recall between the conditions of immediate and delayed JOLs, it is possible to argue that intermediate-age adults who made delayed JOLs were more realistic regarding their memory performance.
As expected for relative accuracy, delayed JOLs were more accurate in estimating performance in the cued-recall than immediate JOLs, which corroborates the models of the literature (Rhodes & Tauber, 2011).