{"id":{"repo_id":"wustl","oai_identifier":"oai:openscholarship.wustl.edu:etd-1531"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/wustl/oai:openscholarship.wustl.edu:etd-1531","repository":{"repo_id":"wustl","name":"Washington University in St. Louis","base_url":"https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Likely Old or Likely New? Taking Memory Advice During Recognition Decisions","abstract":"We examined the influence of external recommendations on recognition memory decisions. In contrast to prior literature that primarily focuses on the negative impacts of external influences during memory judgments, we investigated whether participants can capitalize on explicit reliable recommendations in order to improve their performance. In the first experiment, participants were given explicit external recommendations: “Likely Old” or “Likely New”) that were 75% accurate for deeply and shallowly encoded test items. In the second experiment, participants were given varying levels of recommendations: 65% and 85% accurate). Across both experiments we found that participants improved their performance when given external recommendations relative to when no recommendations were available. Furthermore, we found that the degree to which participants benefitted from external recommendations is, in part, dependent on metacognitive monitoring ability. Finally, corrective feedback did not seem to improve participants’ ability to utilize external recommendations.","abstract_html":"We examined the influence of external recommendations on recognition memory decisions. In contrast to prior literature that primarily focuses on the negative impacts of external influences during memory judgments, we investigated whether participants can capitalize on explicit reliable recommendations in order to improve their performance. In the first experiment, participants were given explicit external recommendations: “Likely Old” or “Likely New”) that were 75% accurate for deeply and shallowly encoded test items. In the second experiment, participants were given varying levels of recommendations: 65% and 85% accurate). Across both experiments we found that participants improved their performance when given external recommendations relative to when no recommendations were available. Furthermore, we found that the degree to which participants benefitted from external recommendations is, in part, dependent on metacognitive monitoring ability. Finally, corrective feedback did not seem to improve participants’ ability to utilize external recommendations.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Selmeczy, Diana"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Arts (MA)","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Ian Dobbins"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2011-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:13:23Z","subjects":["recognition memory","external cues","metacognition"],"languages":["English (en)"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.7936/K7K35RSV"],"render_values":[{"text":"https://doi.org/10.7936/K7K35RSV","href":"https://doi.org/10.7936/K7K35RSV","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/532","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Ian Dobbins"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Selmeczy, Diana"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2012-05-17T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts (MA)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["recognition memory","external cues","metacognition"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English (en)"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/532"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.7936/K7K35RSV"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["We examined the influence of external recommendations on recognition memory decisions. In contrast to prior literature that primarily focuses on the negative impacts of external influences during memory judgments, we investigated whether participants can capitalize on explicit reliable recommendations in order to improve their performance. In the first experiment, participants were given explicit external recommendations: “Likely Old” or “Likely New”) that were 75% accurate for deeply and shallowly encoded test items. In the second experiment, participants were given varying levels of recommendations: 65% and 85% accurate). Across both experiments we found that participants improved their performance when given external recommendations relative to when no recommendations were available. Furthermore, we found that the degree to which participants benefitted from external recommendations is, in part, dependent on metacognitive monitoring ability. Finally, corrective feedback did not seem to improve participants’ ability to utilize external recommendations."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Likely Old or Likely New? Taking Memory Advice During Recognition Decisions"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Ian Dobbins"],"dc:creator":["Selmeczy, Diana"],"dc:date.available":["2012-05-17T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["We examined the influence of external recommendations on recognition memory decisions. In contrast to prior literature that primarily focuses on the negative impacts of external influences during memory judgments, we investigated whether participants can capitalize on explicit reliable recommendations in order to improve their performance. In the first experiment, participants were given explicit external recommendations: “Likely Old” or “Likely New”) that were 75% accurate for deeply and shallowly encoded test items. In the second experiment, participants were given varying levels of recommendations: 65% and 85% accurate). Across both experiments we found that participants improved their performance when given external recommendations relative to when no recommendations were available. Furthermore, we found that the degree to which participants benefitted from external recommendations is, in part, dependent on metacognitive monitoring ability. Finally, corrective feedback did not seem to improve participants’ ability to utilize external recommendations."],"dc:identifier":["https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/532"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.7936/K7K35RSV"],"dc:language":["English (en)"],"dc:subject":["recognition memory","external cues","metacognition"],"dc:title":["Likely Old or Likely New? Taking Memory Advice During Recognition Decisions"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts (MA)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:13:23Z"}