16:30 - 18:00
Parallel sessions 3
16:30 - 18:00
Room: HSZ - N4
Chair/s:
Luisa Schulz, Franziska Ingendahl
Research on metacognition investigates how people understand and regulate their own cognitive processes. This symposium addresses how metacognitive monitoring judgments are formed and how they influence effective learning. The first two talks focus on the underlying basis and accuracy of metacognitive judgments: Schulz, Bröder, and Undorf show that people integrate multiple cues when making metacognitive control decisions. Leipold and Berthold find that Judgments of Remembering and Knowing (JORKs) differ from traditional Judgments of Learning (JOLs) in memory processes, although the previously reported accuracy advantage of JORKs was not replicated. In the third talk, Schaper and Ingendahl present evidence on how metacognitive judgments shape item and source memory. The last two talks provide insights into more applied aspects of metacognition: Zawadzka and Hanczakowski show how feedback motivates learners to solve general knowledge facts themselves. Finally, Undorf, Ingendahl, Janson, Wissel, and Münzer demonstrate that JOLs predict learning behavior and success in a higher education learning setting. Together, the talks provide new insights into the mechanisms and consequences of metacognitive monitoring for learning and memory.
Submission 282
Curiosity and Need for Agency After Negative Feedback
SymposiumTalk-04
Presented by: Katarzyna Zawadzka
Katarzyna ZawadzkaMaciej Hanczakowski
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland
Responding to general knowledge questions is associated with various levels of curiosity as to the identity of correct responses. People seem to be most curious when they feel they know the answer to a question but receive negative feedback indicating that their confidently held answer was in fact incorrect. In this situation, would they wish to receive the actual correct answer immediately, or would they wish to exercise agency by having another go at responding to the question? We examine this issue by using deceptive questions, manipulating the presence of (negative) feedback following the responses to these questions, and providing the opportunity to either see the correct answer outright or to receive a hint for an additional attempt at responding to the question. We show that the presence of feedback motivates participants to more often try to respond to the questions by themselves.