Lipko

370 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
370
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide










  • Lipko

    1. 1. Lipko, Dunlosky, & Merriman (in press) Persistent overconfidence despite practice
    2. 2. 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
    3. 3. 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.
    4. 4. 9 Prediction Recall 6.75 4.5 2.25 0 Trial 1 Trial2 Trail 3
    5. 5. 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?
    6. 6. 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
    7. 7. 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?
    8. 8. Control Prediction Control Recall 9 6.75 4.5 2.25 0 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trail 5
    9. 9. Prediction Recall Postdiciton 9 6.75 4.5 2.25 0 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trail 4 Trail 5
    10. 10. 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

    ×