↓ Skip to main content

Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning
Published in
Memory & Cognition, January 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13421-017-0780-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Undorf, Anke Söllner, Arndt Bröder

Abstract

There is much evidence that metacognitive judgments, such as people's predictions of their future memory performance (judgments of learning, JOLs), are inferences based on cues and heuristics. However, relatively little is known about whether and when people integrate multiple cues in one metacognitive judgment or focus on a single cue without integrating further information. The current set of experiments systematically addressed whether and to what degree people integrate multiple extrinsic and intrinsic cues in JOLs. Experiment 1 varied two cues: number of study presentations (1 vs. 2) and font size (18 point vs. 48 point). Results revealed that people integrated both cues in their JOLs. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the two word characteristics concreteness (abstract vs. concrete) and emotionality (neutral vs. emotional) were integrated in JOLs. Experiment 3 showed that people integrated all four cues in their JOLs when manipulated simultaneously. Finally, Experiment 4 confirmed integration of three cues that varied on a continuum rather than in two easily distinguishable levels. These results demonstrate that people have a remarkable capacity to integrate multiple cues in metacognitive judgments. In addition, our findings render an explanation of cue effects on JOLs in terms of demand characteristics implausible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 46%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,305,203
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#394
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,376
of 443,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.