时间间隔对遗忘元认知监测的影响
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：The Influence of time factor for forgetting metacognitive monitoring
- 论文作者：赵佳 ; 陈功香 ; 宋素涛
- 英文论文作者：Zhaojia ; chen gongxiang ; School of Education and Psychology
- 年：2015
- 作者机构：济南大学教育与心理科学学院;
- 论文关键词：学习判断 ; 遗忘 ; 时间间隔 ; 延迟效应
- 英文论文关键词：Learning judgment ; oblivion ; time interval ; delayed effect
- 会议召开时间：2015-10-16
- 会议录名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议摘要集——心理学与社会发展
- 英文会议录名称：Proceedings of the 18th National Academic Congress of Psychology
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：B842.1
- 学会代码：ZGXG
- 会议名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议
- 会议地点：中国天津
- 主办单位：中国心理学会
- 学会名称：中国心理学会
- 页数：3
- 文件大小：852k
- 原文格式：D
- 会议级别：全国
摘要
本研究采用两个实验,试图探讨时间因素下遗忘的监测机制是否与记住的监测机制同属一个理论框架。实验一沿用JOL的传统实验范式LJR,将预测时间间隔设定为预测5分钟之后、1天之后和1周之后,着重考察JOF能否监测不同时间间隔的差异。同时,考察被试在不同时间间隔点下的实际记忆和遗忘程度,比较其与预测程度的差异。结果表明:(1)被试对不同时间间隔条件下的JOF预测值差异显著,外部线索并不总是被低估的,时间间隔为1周条件下的JOF值显著高于时间间隔为5分钟条件下的JOF值,而时间间隔为1天条件下的JOF值与其他两种时间间隔条件下的JOF值均无显著差异;(2)被试对不同时间间隔条件下的JOL预测值差异显著,时间间隔为一周条件下的JOL值显著低于时间间隔为5分钟条件下的JOL值,而时间间隔为1天条件下的JOL值与其他两种时间间隔条件下的JOL值均无显著差异;(3)被试给出的预测值与实际趋势相吻合。就总体而言,被试在预测自己的遗忘程度程度时表现出整体低估,在预测自己的记忆能力时表现出整体高估。对遗忘的监测结果与对记忆的监测结果相互对应、整体一致。在此基础上,实验二将时间因素这一外部线索设定为即时判断与延迟判断,以往研究中发现了稳定和显著的延迟JOL效应,即延迟JOL的相对准确性显著高于即时JOL。我们参照JOL判断的传统实验程序,考察基于遗忘视角的被试判断情况。结果表明:(1)即时判断条件下,被试赋予JOF比例的词对数目呈倒"V"形,延迟判断条件下,被试赋予JOF比例的词对数目呈倒"U"形;(2)延迟判断条件下的实际遗忘程度低于即时判断条件下的实际遗忘程度;(3)延迟遗忘判断的准确性显著高于即时遗忘判断的准确性,再现了延迟判断效应。根据上述结果,我们可以初步认为,时间因素下基于遗忘角度的元认知监测与基于记忆角度的元认知监测可以共享相同的理论框架。
In this study, two experiments are aimed to investigate whether the remember and forgotten have the same monitoring mechanism in terms of time factor. Study 1 followed the traditional experimental LJR, the prediction interval includes five minutes, one day and one week. The study focused on JOFs and the actual extent of memory and forgetting among different time intervals. The results show that:(1) There was a significant difference on JOF under different intervals, external cues are not always underestimated, and JOF of one week was significantly higher than five minutes, JOF of one day was same with the other conditions;(2) Participants can accurately predict JOLs at different intervals, JOL for one week was significantly lower than five minutes, and JOLs for one day had no significant difference between the other two condition;(3) The predicted value and the actual scores tend to get match. Overall, subjects underestimated their forgetting extent and overvalued their memory extent. Monitoring results for the forgotten and the memory correspond to each other. Based on study 1, the time factor was set as delay judgment and immediate judgment in study 2. Many studies found a steady and significant delay JOL effect, which meant delayed relative accuracy was significantly higher than immediate JOL. We referred to the traditional JOL procedures, observed the JOL based on forgetting perspective. The results showed that:(1)Under the immediate condition, the words of JOF was "V" shape, and under the delay condition, the words of JOF was "U" shape;(2) The actual extent of forgetting in delay condition was less than instant judgment;(3) The delay forgetting accuracy was significantly higher than immediately forgotten, which was consistent with the effect of the delay. Above all, we can initially thought, forgetting metacognitive monitoring and memory metacognitive monitoring can share the same theoretical framework based on the time factor.
In this study, two experiments are aimed to investigate whether the remember and forgotten have the same monitoring mechanism in terms of time factor. Study 1 followed the traditional experimental LJR, the prediction interval includes five minutes, one day and one week. The study focused on JOFs and the actual extent of memory and forgetting among different time intervals. The results show that:(1) There was a significant difference on JOF under different intervals, external cues are not always underestimated, and JOF of one week was significantly higher than five minutes, JOF of one day was same with the other conditions;(2) Participants can accurately predict JOLs at different intervals, JOL for one week was significantly lower than five minutes, and JOLs for one day had no significant difference between the other two condition;(3) The predicted value and the actual scores tend to get match. Overall, subjects underestimated their forgetting extent and overvalued their memory extent. Monitoring results for the forgotten and the memory correspond to each other. Based on study 1, the time factor was set as delay judgment and immediate judgment in study 2. Many studies found a steady and significant delay JOL effect, which meant delayed relative accuracy was significantly higher than immediate JOL. We referred to the traditional JOL procedures, observed the JOL based on forgetting perspective. The results showed that:(1)Under the immediate condition, the words of JOF was "V" shape, and under the delay condition, the words of JOF was "U" shape;(2) The actual extent of forgetting in delay condition was less than instant judgment;(3) The delay forgetting accuracy was significantly higher than immediately forgotten, which was consistent with the effect of the delay. Above all, we can initially thought, forgetting metacognitive monitoring and memory metacognitive monitoring can share the same theoretical framework based on the time factor.
引文