Second-order judgments about judgments of learning

John Dunlosky, Michael Serra, Greg Matvey, Katherine Rawson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


The authors explored the relations between predictions of the likelihood of recalling studied items (called judgments of learning, or JOLs) and second-order judgments (SOJs), in which one rates confidence in the accuracy of each JOL. Each participant studied paired–associate items and made JOLs. A given JOL was either immediate or delayed and was followed immediately by an SOJ. After all items were studied and judged, paired–associate recall occurred. The incorporation of SOJs into this standard method yielded numerous outcomes relevant to theory of metacognitive judgments. SOJs were greater for extreme JOLs (0, 100) than for intermediate JOLs (40, 50). Also, JOL accuracy was greater for delayed than for immediate JOLs, and, reflecting this delayed- JOL effect, SOJs were greater for delayed than for immediate JOLs. These and other outcomes support 2-process hypotheses of how people make JOLs and uncover some pitfalls in interpreting poor judgment accuracy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)335-346
JournalJournal of General Psychology
StatePublished - Sep 2005


Dive into the research topics of 'Second-order judgments about judgments of learning'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this