Do people use category-learning judgments to regulate their learning of natural categories?

Kayla Morehead, John Dunlosky, Nathaniel L. Foster

Although research has established that people can accurately judge how well they have learned categories, no research has examined whether people use their category-learning judgments (CLJs) to regulate their restudy of natural categories. Thus, in five experiments we investigated the relationship between people's CLJs and selections of categories for restudy. Participants first attempted to learn natural categories (bird families; e.g., finches, grosbeaks, and warblers) so that they could categorize new exemplars on a final test. After this initial study phase, participants made a CLJ for each category and then selected a subset of the categories for restudy. Across experiments, we also manipulated several variables (e.g., selecting either three or nine categories, or obtaining 30% vs. 80% performance on the final test) that were expected to influence restudy selections. However, the manipulations typically had minimal impact. More important, in all experiments we found an unexpected outcome: Some participants tended to select the categories they judged to be most well learned for restudy, and others tended to select those judged to be least well learned. We discovered these qualitative differences in the use of CLJs to make restudy selections by using post-hoc analyses in Experiments 1a and 1b, and hence we sought to (a) replicate them in Experiments 2, 3, and 4 and (b) provide preliminary evidence regarding factors that can (vs. cannot) account for them. Most important, evidence across all of the experiments supported the conclusion that people do use their CLJs to select categories for restudy.