Judgments of learning modify memory even when made covertly or using a non-numerical scale

Abstract In metamemory research it is commonly assumed that learners spontaneously monitor their learning progress. To assess monitoring, participants are asked to provide judgments of learning (JOLs) while memorizing information, usually on a percentage scale. Recent evidence that providing JOLs has a reactive effect on memory performance, however, suggests that the processes involved when participants are requested to provide JOLs in experiments are different from those that otherwise occur. The present research examined whether the experimental requirement to report JOLs, rather than the requirement to assess learning, triggers the differential processing which ultimately results in JOL reactivity. Two hypotheses were examined. According to the overt-response hypothesis, JOL reactivity emerges solely from the requirement to report internal assessments that are otherwise done covertly. To test this hypothesis, participants studied related and unrelated word pairs and made JOLs either overtly, covertly, or not at all. According to the numerical-response hypothesis, JOL reactivity emerges from the requirement to translate qualitative, non-numerical internal assessments of learning into numerical responses. To test this hypothesis, participants made overt JOLs on a percentage scale, a Likert scale, a yes/no scale, or did not make JOLs. The results yielded JOL reactivity across all response formats (Experiment 2) and response scales (Experiment 3), except when participants were under-engaged in making covert JOLs (Experiments 1a, 1b, and 1c). These findings are inconsistent with both hypotheses and suggest instead that JOL reactivity emerges from the requirement to assess learning. Implications for the nature and occurrence of spontaneous monitoring are discussed.