Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mem Cognit. 2011 Jul;39(5):750–763. doi: 10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y

Table 2.

Metacognitive judgment magnitudes as a function of measure, study, presentation, exemplar, and age: Experiments 1 and 2

Confidence
JOLs
CLJs
Novel
Studied
Massed Spaced Massed Spaced Massed Spaced Massed Spaced
Experiment 1
 Young
  Singles .44 (.04) .46 (.04) .39 (.03) .46 (.03) .34 (.03) .36 (.03) .43 (.03) .45 (.03)
  Pairs .51 (.04) .53 (.04) .47 (.03) .53 (.03) .43 (.03) .45 (.03) .51 (.03) .53 (.03)
Experiment 2
 Young
  Singles .44 (.04) .45 (.04) .43 (.04) .46 (.04) .44 (.03) .45 (.04) .44 (.04) .46 (.04)
  Pairs .46 (.03) .44 (.03) .40 (.03) .43 (.03) .41 (.03) .42 (.03) .46 (.04) .48 (.04)
 Older
  Singles .37 (.04) .43 (.04) .33 (.04) .37 (.04) .31 (.04) .33 (.04) .33 (.04) .35 (.04)
  Pairs .43 (.04) .46 (.04) .35 (.04) .41 (.04) .41 (.04) .42 (.04) .47 (.04) .48 (.04)

Standard errors of the means are presented in parentheses. JOL, judgment of learning; CLJ, category-learning judgment