Lipko
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lipko

on

  • 597 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
597
Views on SlideShare
597
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />

Lipko Lipko Presentation Transcript

  • Lipko, Dunlosky, & Merriman (in press) Persistent overconfidence despite practice
  • 3 experiments with preschoolers • evaluated whether persistent overconfidence occurs when preschoolers have an opportunity to study a list of to be recalled items prior to predicting their performance
  • Experiment 1 • On 3 trials children saw 10 pictures presented one at a time and placed on a magnetic board • Once all 10 pictures were presented, child had 10 s to study the pictures • Then asked, “how many pictures do you think you can remember?” • Pictures were then covered and the children were given 60 s to recall as many as possible.
  • 9 Prediction Recall 6.75 4.5 2.25 0 Trial 1 Trial2 Trail 3
  • Experiment 2 • 2 (prediction: self or other) X 2 (order: self first or second) X 2 (model: male or female) • and 5 trials instead of 3 • Do more trials increase calibration? • Is it wishful thinking?
  • Self Prediction Self Recall 7 5.25 Other Prediction Other Recall 3.5 7 1.75 5.25 0 Trial 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 3.5 1.75 0 Trial 1 Trail 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
  • Experiment 3 • Just like the self-condition only in Exp 2 • Postdiction and control • Will the children calibrate better if there is salient information? In other words, if recall accuracy on last trial is in WM, will they calibrate more accurately?
  • Control Prediction Control Recall 9 6.75 4.5 2.25 0 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trail 5
  • Prediction Recall Postdiciton 9 6.75 4.5 2.25 0 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trail 4 Trail 5
  • Table 2 Mean prediction, recall, and postdiction values in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Experiment 1 –a Prediction 8.33 (2.37) 8.29 (2.22) 7.05 (2.73) –ª Recall 5.52 (1.60) 3.76 (1.34) 3.52 (1.50) – – Experiment 2 Self condition Prediction 6.75 (2.68) 6.25 (2.54) 6.34 (2.91) 6.16 (3.06) 5.44 (2.72) Recall 4.06 (1.64) 2.59 (1.32) 2.59 (1.36) 2.44 (1.48) 2.37 (1.38) Other condition Prediction 6.62 (3.27) 5.69 (2.66) 5.97 (2.47) 5.66 (2.94) 5.56 (2.83) Recallb 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 Experiment 3 Control group Prediction 8.90 (2.26) 7.71 (3.05) 7.03 (2.83) 7.19 (3.05) 7.22 (2.81) Recall 4.97 (1.45) 3.32 (1.60) 3.22 (1.36) 3.00 (1.09) 3.19 (1.78) Postdiction group Prediction 8.73 (2.45) 7.87 (2.70) 7.12 (3.21) 7.45 (3.09) 7.18 (3.44) Recall 4.90 (1.66) 3.67 (1.38) 3.24 (1.41) 2.97 (1.16) 3.06 (2.56) –c 5.90 (2.26) 4.61 (2.29) 3.87 (1.90) 3.76 (2.15) Postdiction Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. a Only three trials occurred in Experiment 1. b Values represent the predetermined recall of the child model in the video. c Postdictions were not collected on the first trial. Concerning the main effect of trial, both prediction and recall values declined across the three tri- als. Predictions on the first trial were significantly greater than those on the third trial, t(20) = 2.26, p < .05, d = .50. The mean prediction on the second trial was also significantly different from that on