DO DIFFERENT METAMEMORY JUDGMENTS TAP THE SAME UNDERLYING ASPECTS OF MEMORY

We compared the predictions from several kinds of metamemory judgments (on the same set of items), both in terms of their predictive accuracy and in terms of the commonality of predictions. Undergraduates made judgments about the ease with which they could learn each item in a list (ease-of-learning judgments); then they learned every item, either to a minimal criterion of learning or with overlearning, and made judgments about how well they knew each item (judgments of knowing); finally, they returned 4 weeks later for a retention session and made feeling-of-knowing judgments on every time they could not recall, after which a recognition test assessed predictive accuracy. Ease-of-learning judgments had the least predictive accuracy. Surprisingly, however, the recognition of nonrecalled items was predicted equally well by judgments of knowing (made 4 weeks earlier) as by feeling-of-knowing judgments (made immediately prior to recognition). Moreover, those two kinds of judgments were only weakly correlated with each other, which implies that they do not tap memory in the same way.