Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 1360–1375 | Cite as

Predicting others’ knowledge: Knowledge estimation as cue utilization

  • Jonathan G. Tullis
Article
  • 107 Downloads

Abstract

Predicting what others know is vital to countless social and educational interactions. For example, the ability of teachers to accurately estimate what knowledge students have has been identified as a crucial component of effective teaching. I propose the knowledge estimation as cue-utilization framework, in which judges use a variety of available and salient metacognitive cues to estimate what others know. In three experiments, I tested three hypotheses of this framework: namely, that participants do not automatically ground estimates of others’ knowledge in their own knowledge, that judgment conditions shift how participants weight different cues, and that participants differentially weight cues based upon their diagnosticity. Predictions of others’ knowledge were dynamically generated by judges who weighed a variety of available and salient cues. Just as the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring of one’s own learning depends upon the conditions under which judgments of self are elicited, the bases and accuracy of metacognitive judgments for others depends upon the conditions under which they are elicited.

Keywords

Metacognition Monitoring Perspective taking 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded in part by a Faculty Seed Grant from the University of Arizona.

References

  1. Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126–131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of second-language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, D. J. (2008). Pragmatic expectations at linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground. Cognition, 109, 18–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin, A. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effect of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin, A. S. Tullis, J. G., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Criterion noise in ratings-based recognition: Evidence from the effects of response scale length on recognition accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39, 1601-1608.Google Scholar
  8. Berg, T., & Brouwer, W. (1991). Teacher awareness of student alternate conceptions about rotational motion and gravity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birch, S. A. J. (2005). When knowledge is a curse: Children’s and adults’ reasoning about mental states. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birch, S. A. J., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children are cursed: An asymmetric bias in metal-state attribution. Psychological Science, 14, 283–286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 893–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Karjcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, R. L., Sandler, S. P., & Keglevich, L. (1991). The failure of memory monitoring in a free recall task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 523–538. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2014). Understanding people’s metacognitive judgments: An isomechanism framework and its implications for applied and theoretical research. In T. Perfect & D. S. Lindsay (Eds.) Handbook of applied memory (pp. 444–464). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Epley, N., Keysar, B., Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Finley, J. R., Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2009). Metacognitive control of learning and remembering. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  22. Fraundorf, S. H., Diaz, M. I., Finley, J. R., Lewis, M. L., Tooley, K. M., Isaacs, A. M., … Brehm, L. (2014). CogToolbox for MATLAB [Computer software]. Available from http://www.scottfraundorf.com/cogtoolbox.html
  23. Friedrichson, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M., & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 378–391.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jameson, A., Nelson, T. O., Leonesio, R. J., & Narens, L. (1993). The feeling of another person’s knowing. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 320–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 137–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelley, C. M. (1999). Subjective experience as a basis of “objective” judgments: Effects of past experience on judgments of. difficulty. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 17, pp. 515–536). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic basis for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157–175. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. King, J. F., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval practice. The American Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 329–343. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1422236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koriat, A. (2008). Subjective confidence in ones answers: The consensuality principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 945–959. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.945
  37. Koriat, A., & Adiv, S. (2011). The construction of attitudinal judgments: Evidence from attitude certainty and response latency. Social Cognition: 29, 577-611.Google Scholar
  38. Leibert, T. W., & Nelson, D. L. (1998). The roles of cue and target familiarity in making feeling of knowing judgments. The American Journal of Psychology, 111, 63–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Lin, S., Keysar, B., & Epley, N. (2010). Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 551–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  41. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 851–861.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mueller, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 245-258.Google Scholar
  44. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “Delayed-JOL effect”. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson, T. O., Kruglanski, A. W., & Jost, J. T. (1998). Knowing thyself and others: Progress in metacognitive social psychology. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne (Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions (pp. 69–89). London, UK: SAGECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Memory and Language, 19, 338–368.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–73). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nickerson, R. S. (2001). The projective way of knowing: A useful heuristic that sometimes misleads. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A., & Freeman, B. (1987). Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychologica, 64, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 90–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryskin, R. A., Benjamin, A. S., Tullis, J. G., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2015). Perspective-taking in comprehension, production, and memory: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 898–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1020–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 723–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz, B. L. (1994). Sources of information in metamemory: Judgments of learning and feelings of knowing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(3), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Serra, M. J., & Ariel, R. (2014). People use the memory for past-test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1260–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Rhodes, M. G., & Sitzman, D. M. (2013). General knowledge norms: Updated and expanded from the Nelson and Narens (1980) norms. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1115-1143.Google Scholar
  60. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.Google Scholar
  62. Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Diminishing adult egocentrism when estimating what others know. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 473–486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 109–118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012a). Consequences of restudy choices in younger and older learners. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2012b). The effectiveness of updating metacognitive knowledge in the elderly: Evidence from metamnemonic judgments of word frequency. Psychology and Aging, 27, 683–690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2015). Cueing others’ memories. Memory & Cognition, 43, 634–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations