Are collaborative judgments of learning more accurate? Evidence from a Value-Based Metamemory Task

This study aimed to explore how the value of learning materials and task experience influence two types of judgments of learning (JOLs)—individual JOLs ( Experiment 1) and collaborative JOL (Experiment 2)—by manipulating retrieval methods (individual vs. collaborative retrieval) using an adapted selective task paradigm. The results indicated that: (1) Both individual and collaborative judges gave higher judgments ratings to high-value learning materials; (2) Collaborative judgments were more accurate than individual ones; (3) For low-value materials, judgment accuracy depended on whether the judgment method matched the retrieval method, and accuracy trends reversed as the experiment proceeded. For medium-to-high-value materials, accuracy increased and false alarms decreased regardless of method matching. These findings confirm that participants believe "high-value materials are easier to remember" and "collaboration is superior to individual efforts." They also reveal that high cognitive load (e.g., processing low-value materials and switching between individual and collaborative contexts) reduce accuracy—explaining why mismatched judgment-retrieval methods lower accuracy for low-value materials. These findings theoretically advance metamemory research by revealing that "collaboration" serves as a unique cue to interact with value signals, thereby expanding the understanding of how social context shapes memory monitoring.