Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition

2001, Vol. 27, No. 5, 1172-1179
Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
O278-7393/O1/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.27.5.1172
When Knowing More Means Less: The Effect of Fan
on Metamemory Judgments
Michael J. McGuire and Ruth H. Maki
Texas Tech University
The authors used a "fan" paradigm (J. R. Anderson, 1974) to test the accessibility and competition
models of metamemory using judgments of learning (JOLs). JOLs in this study reflect one's confidence
level in subsequently recognizing newly learned material. The number of facts, or "fan," associated with
JOL-queried concepts varied from 1 to 3 associates. Results of 3 experiments indicated that as the level
of fan increased, the magnitude of JOLs decreased. This finding was observed even when the fan effect
(i.e., slower recognition as number of facts increase) was attenuated on a verification task in 2 of the
experiments by manipulating the organization of the multiple concepts. The results supported the
competition hypothesis (T. A. Schreiber, 1998; T. A. Schreiber & D. L. Nelson, 1998) as an important
determinant of JOLs.
Will more information learned about concepts increase or de-
crease the magnitude of metamemory prediction judgments for
such concepts? We tested these two opposite predictions derived
from the accessibility (Koriat, 1993, 1995) and competition
(Schreiber, 1998; Schreiber & Nelson, 1998) hypotheses for
metamemory judgments. In an associative interference, or "fan"
paradigm (Anderson, 1974), our participants learned facts contain-
ing objects and locations. The number of facts learned about target
concepts varied from one to three, which defined the magnitude of
fan.
Koriat's (1993, 1995) accessibility hypothesis predicts higher
judgments when more facts can be retrieved. In the 1993 study,
participants who could produce more letters of a letter-string
response gave higher judgments than those who could produce
fewer letters. Participants in Koriat's (1995) study gave higher
judgments to general knowledge questions that produced more
Michael J. McGuire and Ruth H. Maki, Department of Psychology,
Texas Tech University.
This research represents a major portion of Michael J. McGuire's
dissertation at Texas Tech University. The findings for Experiment 1 were
presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Dallas, Texas,
November 1998, and the findings for Experiment 2 were presented at the
meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, California, November
1999. Findings for Experiment 3 were presented at the meeting of the
Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 2000.
We thank G. A. Radvansky for an ongoing correspondence dealing with
situation models and the fan effect as well as comments pertaining to
various points in this article. We thank Asher Koriat, Janet Metcalfe, and
two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this article.
Special thanks go to undergraduate research assistants Kate Haskew,
Joseph Johnson, and Laura Powell for testing participants in Experiment 1,
and to Jenni Brumelle, Jill Bulgeron, and Keith Pennick for testing partic-
ipants in Experiment 3.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to either
Michael J. McGuire, who is now at the Department of Psychology,
Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan 49855, or
Ruth H. Maki, Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lab-
bock, Texas 79409-2051. Electronic mail may be sent to either
mjmcguiretx@netscape.net or ruth.maki@ttu.edu.
answers than they did to questions that produced fewer answers.
Thus, an extension of the accessibility hypothesis predicts higher
metamemory judgments on concepts for which more information
has been learned and can be retrieved, that is, judgments will
increase with fan.
Conversely, an extension of the competition hypothesis
(Schreiber, 1998; Schreiber & Nelson, 1998) predicts lower
metamemory judgments for targets associated with more facts.
Using an associative cuing paradigm, Schreiber and Nelson (1998)
found that metamemory judgments were higher for cues with a
smaller number of associates in semantic memory than for cues
with a larger number of associates. Schreiber (1998) found evi-
dence for competition in similar experiments when he varied the
associative set size for the to-be-remembered targets. Maki (1999)
used retroactive interference paradigms to investigate the compe-
tition versus accessibility hypotheses for newly learned material.
She found that stimuli paired with two responses produced lower
metamemory judgments than stimuli paired with only one re-
sponse. The same was true for responses; pairs in which the
response was paired with two stimuli were given lower judgments
than pairs in which the response was paired with only one stimu-
lus. Thus, Maki's results, like those of Schreiber (1998; Schreiber
& Nelson, 1998), supported competition rather than accessibility
as the basis for metamemory judgments.
The accessibility hypothesis was developed primarily for
feeling-of-knowing (FOK) judgments, in which participants pre-
dicted recognition for nonrecalled items. However, Koriat (1995)
also had participants make predictions for all items before recall,
that is, make judgments similar to what Nelson and Narens (1990)
called judgments of learning (JOLs). Koriat found that both JOLs
and FOKs were higher when more information could be retrieved.
Schreiber (1998; Schreiber & Nelson, 1998) also used both FOKs
and JOLs and found the opposite, that targets with more preex-
perimental associates resulted in lower judgments.
We investigated the accessibility and competition hypotheses
using JOLs in an associative interference (fan) paradigm modeled
after the studies of Anderson (1974) and Radvansky, Spieler, and
Zacks (1993). Participants learned facts containing object and
location concepts (e.g., The exit sign is in the airport). The number
1172
EFFECT OF FAN ON METAMEMORY
1173
of facts learned about targets varied from one to three, which
defined the fan. For example, if the target concept (in this example,
exit sign) was a Fan Level 3 concept, then it would be associated
with three sentences containing three different locations (e.g.,
airport, lounge, library). Therefore, target concepts (e.g., exit sign)
varied in the amount of information learned about them. Once all
of the facts were learned to a criterion, participants were presented
with target concepts that varied by fan. The participants then made
JOLs by predicting how well they would correctly recognize
studied facts containing the target concepts on a later recognition
task. The accessibility hypothesis predicts higher JOLs for Fan 3
concepts relative to Fan 1 and 2 concepts because more informa-
tion is accessible for Fan 3 concepts. The competition hypothesis
predicts higher JOLs for Fan 1 concepts relative to Fan 2 and 3
concepts because there are fewer sources of potential interference
for Fan 1 concepts.
General Method
Participants
All participants were recruited from the Texas Tech University General
Psychology participant pool. They received credit for their course require-
ments in General Psychology in exchange for their participation.
Materials
The stimuli were modeled after Radvansky et al.'s (1993) materials in
which sentences consisted of object-location pairings. The structure for
each sentence was, The [object] is in the [location]. For example, a
participant might see The banner is in the gym. Participants were presented
with 24 sentences to learn. Sentences varied by "fan," or the number of
facts (from one to three) participants learned about the target concepts
(hereafter referred to as JOL-queried concepts). "Fan" may also be inter-
preted as the number of sentences in which a given JOL-queried concept
appeared. Example sentences varying by fan can be found in Table 1 (the
location manipulation will be discussed in Experiment 2). For example,
according to Table 1 the exit sign is a Fan 3 concept, whereas the ceiling
fan is a Fan 1 concept.
Learning phase. Participants were instructed to learn sentences as
efficiently as possible. The experiments were conducted on IBM-PC com-
patible computers, using Micro Experimental Laboratory (MEL) (Ver-
sion 2.0) software (Schneider, 1995). On a computer monitor, 24 randomly
ordered sentences were displayed for 7 s each. After all sentences were
presented, participants were given a cued-recall test in which they typed the
single correct answer to questions such as What is located in the airport?
Participants received feedback after typing in their response. Once partic-
ipants correctly answered every question in a block of 24 questions, they
advanced to the prediction phase. Otherwise, participants were presented
with the sentences for study again, followed by the cued-recall task.
Prediction (JOL) phase. After learning the sentences, participants
made predictions for JOL-queried concepts. For example, participants
would see the following: How confident are you that you will recognize
studied fact(s) involving the exit sign? Under the query was a 7-point rating
scale with 1 representing not at all confident and 7 representing very
confident.
Verification phase. For the final phase, participants differentiated stud-
ied from nonstudied sentences. They were instructed to respond as quickly
as possible while remaining accurate. Before the test trials, participants
were given 10 practice trials to become familiar with the procedure. For
each of the practice trials, as well as the test trials, participants placed their
forefingers on the Z and forward slash keys, respectively. Practice sen-
tences were This sentence is studied or This sentence is not studied.
Pressing the Z key meant that the sentence was not a studied sentence,
whereas pressing the forward slash key meant that the sentence was
studied.
Experiment 1
The primary purpose of Experiment 1 was to assess whether fan
affected JOLs. If JOLs for higher fan concepts resulted in higher
predictions, then the accessibility hypothesis would be supported.
The competition hypothesis would be supported if the results
showed lower JOLs for higher fan concepts due to increased
competing activation for such concepts. We attempted to reduce
the effect of fan by enhancing the integration of studied facts. To
this end, we introduced an instructional manipulation emphasizing
imagery. We expected that participants using imagery would be
able to integrate information more efficiently than participants not
using imagery. Therefore, we expected that participants in the
imagery groups would show a reduced fan effect in reaction times
(RTs) because of less interference with integrated materials. If
metamemory is equally sensitive to competition, then the fan effect
would also be reduced for JOLs.
Method
Participants. A total of 66 participants were randomly assigned to one
of three groups receiving a different set of instructions (no imagery, simple
imagery, and interactive imagery), resulting in three groups of 22 partici-
pants each.
Design. The experimental design formed a 3 X 3 mixed-model facto-
rial with imagery instructions (no imagery, simple imagery, and interactive
imagery) manipulated between subjects and fan (1-3) manipulated within
subject. The dependent measures included: (a) proportion of trials correct
Table 1
Exemplar Sentences Participants Studied in Fan Experiments
Location
Fan Multiple Single
The ceiling fan is in the barbershop.
The coke machine is in the club spa.
The coke machine is in the school.
The exit sign is in the airport.
The exit sign is in the lounge.
The exit sign is in the library.
The big desk is in the office.
The pay phone is in the hospital.
The file cabinet is in the hospital.
The marble bench is in the hotel.
The oak desk is in the hotel.
The revolving door is in the hotel.
Note. Italicized words represent the fan concepts for which participants made judgments of learning.
1174
McGUIRE AND MAKI
Table 2
Basic Schemata of Word Pairings for the Design of Experiments
Condition
Multiple locations
Single location
Multiple locations
Fan 1
O,-L,
O
2
-L
2
O
3
-L
3
O4-L4
O,-L,
O
2
-L
2
Ou-L,
O
5
-L
5
O
8
- L'
Fan 2
Experiment 1
O
5
-L
6
O
6
-L
8
1 Og-L
12
Experiments 2 and 3
O
3
-L
3
O
4
-L
3
O
5
-L
4
O
6
-L
4
Ojj-Lp Oi5-L,o
O9-L13
O
10
-L
16
o!
2
-L22
O
7
-L
5
0
1 0
-L
6
O,
7
-L
13
Fan 3
O
9
-L
14
o l - L
2
o
0,2-^23
O
8
-L
5
0, , -L,
O
17
-L
14
O
18
-L
I 7
O
9
-L
15
O
9
-L
5
0,2-Ls
O
17
-L
15
O,
8
-L
18
Note. O =object concept; L =location concept. Subscripts refer to specific objects and locations. When a
subscript is repeated, that means that the same concept is repeated as well. For nonstudied sentences, each
concept was re-paired with an alternative associate from the same cell. For example, Object 1 would be re-paired
with one of the three locations within its cell (i.e., Location 2, 3, or 4).
during the learning phase, (b) JOLs, and (c) RT and error rates on the
verification task.
Materials. The 24 sentences to be remembered were composed of 12
objects (the same used in Radvansky et al., 1993) and 24 locations
1
(half
of which came from Radvansky et al.). The top half of Table 2 gives an
illustration of how objects and locations were paired for the sentences.
Thirty different sentences were used in the verification task. Following
Anderson's (1974) rationale, we did not include all studied sentences so
that Fan 3 sentences were not presented more often than Fan 1 sentences
during the verification phase. Nine critical studied sentences were pre-
sented. Another 9 critical nonstudied sentences consisted of novel combi-
nations of the objects and locations from the studied sentences. The critical
sentences were each tested twice, giving 36 trials for which data were
analyzed. So that participants could keep all the material active in memory,
we included 12 additional filler sentences using the concepts not included
in the critical set. Half of these filler sentences were studied and half were
nonstudied. Verification times for the filler sentences were not analyzed.
Procedure. The main difference between procedures in this experi-
ment and those of the general method section was an instructional manip-
ulation presented at the beginning of the learning phase. The verbal
instructions varied according to which group participants were randomly
assigned. All participants were instructed to "memorize the materials as
efficiently as possible." Simple and interactive imagery groups were also
instructed to form "distinct mental images" of the concepts. In addition, the
interactive imagery group was instructed to form "mental images with the
to-be-remembered concepts actively interacting with one another. . . al-
lowing sentence objects to act as pegs upon which you can attach loca-
tions." Several specific examples of such interactive imagery were given in
both imagery conditions.
Results and Discussion
Learning phase. We first examined blocks to criterion, that is,
how many study-test cycles were necessary before the 24 ques-
tions were answered correctly on a single test. The mean number
of blocks to reach criterion for the no imagery, simple imagery,
and interactive imagery groups was 4.68, 4.05, and 3.86 blocks,
respectively (overall, participants took an average of 4.20 blocks,
SD =1.60, to reach criterion). An analysis of variance (ANOVA)
showed no significant differences among imagery groups, F(2,
63) = 1.07, MSE = 2.80, p > .05 (the level of significance used
throughout this article unless noted otherwise).
Next, we calculated the proportion of trials on which each object
was correctly recalled on the cued-recall tests. Mean proportion
correct for Fan 1, Fan 2, and Fan 3 conditions is displayed in
Table 3. A 3 (imagery) X 3 (fan) mixed ANOVA showed a
significant main effect for fan, F(2, 126) =3.27, MSE =0.008.
Post hoc pairwise comparisons with a Tukey correction for Type I
error indicated only that Fan 3 sentences were correct more often
than Fan 2 sentences, F(l, 63) =7.63, MSE = 0.007. The other
comparisons resulted in F values less than the Tukey critical F
value of 5.78: Fan 1 versus Fan 2, F(l , 63) =2.08, MSE =0.001;
Fan 1 versus Fan 3, F < 1. The imagery groups did not differ
significantly from one another (means for no imagery =.74,
simple imagery =.76, and interactive =.77), F(2, 63) =1.27,
MSE = 0.02. The interaction between imagery and fan was non-
significant (F <1).
JOL magnitude. For the JOLs, each participant's median rat-
ing for each level of fan was calculated and then entered into a
3 (imagery) X 3 (fan) mixed-model ANOVA. Medians
were 7.00,7.00, and 6.00 for Fan Levels 1 through 3, respectively.
The analysis yielded the following results: fan was significant,
F(2, 126) =17.05, MSE = 0.598; both imagery and the Fan X
Imagery interactions were nonsignificant (both F values <1).
Verification task performance. Figure 1 displays the mean
reaction times for responding to both studied and nonstudied
sentences. The time taken to verify whether a sentence had been
studied increased as a function of fan. A 3 (imagery) X 2 (studied
vs. nonstudied) X 3 (fan) mixed-design ANOVA was conducted
with fan and studied-nonstudied as repeated measures variables
and imagery as a between-groups variable. This analysis resulted
in only one significant finding: RT increased with fan, F(2,
126) =6.28, MSE =211,103.90. For the main effect of fan,
1
More locations were used to accommodate the levels of fan to which
each object was assigned. Furthermore, this experiment and the experi-
ments to follow were designed so that no concept was repeated across fan
conditions (cf. Anderson, 1974; Radvansky et al., 1993). This enabled a
clearer distinction of the fan level, and thereby the corresponding number
of facts, assigned to each JOL-queried concept.
EFFECT OF FAN ON METAMEMORY 1175
Table 3
Mean Proportion Correct (and Standard Deviation) During
Learning for Experiments 1, 2, and 3 by Location and Fan
Experiment
1
2
3
Location
Multiple
Single
Multiple
Single
Multiple
1
.76 (.12)
.77 (.22)
.78 (.20)
.78 (.19)
.80 (.17)
Fan
2
.74 (.11)
.77 (.14)
.77 (.16)
.77 (.18)
.77 (.16)
3
.78 (.10)
.78 (.12)
.78 (.13)
.77 (.15)
.80 (.13)
pairwise comparisons using a Tukey correction (F
T
= 5.78) indi-
cated that Fan 1 RTs were faster than Fan 3 RTs, F(l, 63) =12.08,
MSE = 157,794.82. Fan 1 RTs did not differ from Fan 2 RTs, F(l,
63) =5.51, MSE = 149,365.56, and RTs between Fan 2 and Fan 3
did not differ, F(l, 63) = 1.38, MSE = 162,972.17. Effect of
studied-nonstudied and imagery were nonsignificant (F < 1).
Likewise, all interactions were nonsignificant (F < 1).
Error rates in the none, simple, and interactive groups
were 2.0%, 2.0%, and 4.0%, respectively. Participants missed an
overall 2.4%, 3.3%, and 3.3% of sentences for Fan Levels 1 to 3
respectively. There were no significant interactions nor were there
any significant effects when these data were submitted to a 3
(imagery) X 2 (studied vs. nonstudied) X 3 (fan) mixed-design
ANOVA, largest F(2, 63) = 1.31, MSE =0.003, for the Studied-
Nonstudied X Imagery interaction.
In general, participants learned the sentences well, suggesting
that the studied material was readily available at the level of
recognition. Furthermore, because participants were not allowed to
progress without reaching the criterion of correct recall of all
sentences, the material was also accessible at the level of recall
prior to making predictions.
As fan increased, latency to recognize studied sentences in-
creased, and the magnitude of paticipants' JOLs decreased. This
finding is consistent with Schreiber's (1998) and Schreiber and
Nelson's (1998) findings that as set size increased, magnitude of
FOK and JOL decreased. The JOL result also corroborates Maki's
(1999) finding that JOLs are influenced by competition in the form
of interference. The inverse relationship between fan and JOLs,
however, is difficult to reconcile with the accessibility hypothesis
(Koriat, 1993, 1995), which predicts that the presence of more
information associated with a given item results in higher
judgments.
The second and ancillary purpose of this experiment was to
assess the effect of varying degrees of integrated information on
JOLs. Radvansky (1999a) suggested that better integration of
information leads to a diminished fan effect relative to studied
material that has not been integrated as well. We tried to increase
the integration of material with imagery instructions. However,
there were no significant differences among imagery on either the
JOL or the verification tasks. Participants may not have been able
to make interactive images including a single object in up to three
locations in the interactive imagery group. Thus, they may have
used interactive imagery in all groups at relatively equal levels.
Because our imagery manipulation failed, we conducted Experi-
ments 2 and 3 with closer adherence to the format of Radvansky et
al.'s (1993) experiments by using single and multiple location
sentences.
Experiment 2
The purpose of Experiment 2 was to replicate findings of
Experiment 1 and also to produce a diminished fan effect on
verification RTs. Since initial work on the fan effect, many inves-
tigators have reported situations in which the fan effect can be
attenuated or diminished (for a review, see Anderson & Reder,
1999a; Radvansky, 1999a). We were interested in producing a
diminished fan effect to determine whether there would be a
corresponding reduction in JOLs because of reduced competition.
Nelson, Sheck, Dunlosky, and Narens (1999) showed that the
magnitude of JOLs was negatively related to time to recall, par-
ticularly when the JOLs were delayed after learning. The correla-
tion between recall latencies and JOLs suggests that we may see a
similar correlation between recognition latencies and JOLs. Thus,
a reduced fan effect for verification RTs may be associated with a
reduced fan effect for JOLs.
Alternatively, we may not see a reduction in the fan effect for
JOLs even when we find a diminished fan effect for verification
RTs. Maki (1999) found a dissociation between interference in
recall and interference in JOLs. There was no impairment in recall
when the same response was paired with different stimuli, but that
condition consistently showed JOLs that were lower relative to a
condition using different stimuli and responses on two lists. Thus,
interference occurred in the metamemory judgments when it did
not occur in recall. Schreiber (1998) argued that the associative
interference that occurred in his paradigm was automatic and may
occur without conscious awareness. Following this logic, compe-
tition from increasing fan may produce lower JOLs even when the
fan effect is attenuated in verification RTs.
We used the paradigm developed by Radvansky et al. (1993) to
produce a differential fan effect, that is, a larger fan effect for one
set of materials relative to another set. Participants in Radvansky
et al.'s study memorized sentences involving objects in locations.
In the multiple location (ML) condition, a single object appeared
in several different locations (see left half of Table 1). For the
single location (SL) condition, a single location contained several
different objects (see right half of Table 1). Radvansky et al. found
a fan effect for the ML condition, but not for the SL condition.
They interpreted this result as evidence for the use of situation
models with one model necessary in the SL condition and multiple
-Studied
-Nonstudied
2
Fan
Figure 1. Mean reaction times for both studied and nonstudied sentences
as a function of fan on the verification task for Experiment 1.
1176
McGUIRE AND MAKJ
models necessary in the ML condition (for differing interpretations
of fan effects, see Anderson & Reder, 1999a, 1999b; Radvansky,
1999a, 1999b).
As shown in Table 1, three objects can be in one location, in this
case the hotel, at the same time. Thus, in the SL condition, one
mental representation can accommodate one, two, or three objects,
so a single representation would be activated for Fan 1, Fan 2, and
Fan 3 concepts. However, in the ML condition, it is unrealistic to
have the same object, like an exit sign, in three locations at the
same time. Thus, in the ML, Fan 3 condition, three different
mental representations, one for each object-location pairing,
would be created. All three representations would need to be
activated in order to verify Fan 3 sentences. This would contrast
with the Fan 1 and Fan 2 conditions, in which only one or two
representations would need to be activated for verification. Thus,
a greater fan effect should be seen in the ML than in the SL
condition. The question of primary interest to us was whether a
similar reduction in the fan effect would occur in JOLs.
Method
The design was a 2 (location) X 3 (fan) within-subject design. The
materials consisted of sentences
2
that adhered to the same format as in
Experiment 1, namely, The [object] is in the [location]. Four different
object-location lists were used across participants. As shown in the bottom
of Table 2, half of the sentences in each list were SL sentences and the
other half were ML sentences. A total of 20 participants was randomly
assigned to the four lists, with 5 participants per list.
The procedure was identical to that used in Experiment 1 with two major
exceptions. First, we included the within-subject materials manipulation
referred to as location (SL vs. ML). Second, three more blocks of verifi-
cation trials were conducted, so that there were 192 trials for each fan-by-
location condition. The increase in blocks of trials is consistent with
Radvansky et al.'s (1993) procedure.
Results and Discussion
Learning phase. On average, participants took 3.65 blocks
(SD = 1.14) to reach criterion. Mean proportions correct, as
displayed in Table 3, on the cued-recall test during learning did not
vary by fan or by location. A 2 (location) X 3 (fan) repeated
measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects of fan
and location on learning. No significant effects were obtained
(Fs < 1 for fan, location, and the Fan X Location interaction).
JOL magnitude. Figure 2 displays the median ratings of par-
7.00
6.75-
6.50
6.2 5
6.00
5.75-
1 2 3
Fan
Figure 2. Judgment of learning (JOL) medians as a function of fan and
location for Experiment 2.
ticipants' JOLs for each level of fan. These data were entered into
a 2 (location) X 3 (fan) repeated measures ANOVA yielding the
following results: fan was significant, F(2, 38) = 6.45,
MSE = 0.504; both the main effect of location and the Location X
Fan interaction were nonsignificant (both Fs < 1).
Verification task performance. Figure 3 displays the mean
RTs for verifying whether a sentence had been studied for SL and
ML sentences. These data were analyzed in a 2 (studied vs.
nonstudied) X 2 (location) X 3 (fan) mixed model ANOVA. Mean
response latency for studied sentences (1,542 ms) was faster than
that for nonstudied sentences (1,635 ms), F(l, 19) = 11.89,
MSE = 43,720.11. Overall, participants responded more quickly to
SL condition sentences (1,550 ms) than to ML condition sentences
(1,627 ms),F(l, 19) = 10.98, MSE = 32,496.19. As fan increased,
mean response latency increased as well (1,479 ms, 1,610
ms, 1,678 ms for Fans 1, 2, and 3, respectively), F(2, 32) =13.85,
MSE = 59,128.64.
The three-way interaction was nonsignificant (F < 1). However,
the critical Location X Fan interaction that can be seen in Figure
4 was significant, F(2, 38) =4.99, MSE =72,716.54. A follow-up
one-way repeated measures ANOVA for the ML condition yielded
a significant effect for fan, F(2, 38) = 17.06, MSE =30,813.65.
Pairwise comparisons with a Tukey correction (F
T
= 6.44) indi-
cated that Fan 1 RTs were faster than Fan 2 RTs, F(l, 19) =18.39,
MSE = 73556.61, and faster than Fan 3 RTs, F(l, 19) = 24.64,
MSE = 71928.78. RTs between Fan 2 and Fan 3 did not differ
(F < 1). There was no significant fan effect in the SL condition,
F(2, 38) = 1.86, MSE = 35,108.95. Thus, a fan effect was
observed in the ML condition but not in the SL condition, repli-
cating Radvansky et al. (1993). This indicates that there was
greater interference with an increased number of facts in the ML
condition but not in the SL condition.
An analysis of participants' error rates indicated that overall,
participants made fewer errors for studied sentences (3.1%, SD =
.04) than nonstudied sentences (7.2%, SD = .12), F(l, 19) =6.81,
MSE = .01. Mean error rates for Fan 1, Fan 2, and Fan 3 in the SL
condition were 2.5%, 12.0%, and 3.2%, respectively. In the ML
condition, these values were 2.2%, 3.9%, and 6.9%. Although the
main effect of fan was significant, F(2, 38) = 3.83, MSE - 0.01,
there was also a significant Fan X Location interaction, F(2,
38) = 4.56, MSE = .02. Errors were particularly high in the SL,
Fan 2 condition, but it is unclear why this occurred.
The results of Experiment 2 replicated the finding that JOLs
decreased as a function of fan regardless of whether JOL-queried
concepts stemmed from SL or ML sentences. Furthermore, SL
sentences displayed less interference as measured by verification
than did ML sentences, as evidenced by the interaction between
fan and location for RTs. Participants verified SL sentences more
quickly than ML sentences, but there was no significant difference
between the JOLs in the two conditions. Evidence for competition
2
Sentences were normed for sensibility in an earlier study in which all
possible combinations for 32 objects and 32 locations were constructed to
yield a total of 1,024 sentences. Participants in this norming study re-
sponded to the query, "How sensible is this sentence?" on a Likert-type
scale from 1 (least sensible) to 7 (most sensible). The sentences with the
highest overall ratings were then selected. The lists were constructed such
that each list represented a unique set of sentences in terms of location
condition (SL/ML) and fan. Sentences can be obtained from the authors.
EFFECT OF FAN ON METAMEMORY
1177
1800 -.
1700-
c o
f
g
1500-
1400
1300
o Single Studied
single Norstudled
o M J H p l e Studied
M uWple Nonstudied
1 2 3
Fan
Figure 3. Mean reaction times for both studied and nonstudied sentences
as a function of fan and location on the verification task for Experiment 2.
at the metacognitive level (i.e., JOLs) but not at a cognitive level
(i.e., verification RTs) was attained in the SL condition.
Experiment 3
We conducted a third experiment manipulating the instructions
for making JOLs. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants made
predictions about their ability to correctly recognize studied facts
containing JOL-queried concepts. We assumed that participants
would interpret this as all studied facts associated with the queried
concept, but this may not have been the case. For this experiment,
we explicitly stated what participants should have in mind when
making predictions. One group of participants was told to indicate
how confident they were in recognizing at least one studied
sentence involving the fan concepts when making their JOLs. The
other group indicated their confidence in recognizing all studied
sentences involving the fan concepts. Predicting future recognition
of at least one studied sentence for Fan 3 concepts may result in
higher JOL ratings than for a Fan 1 concept because more facts
mean that at least one should be retrievable at test; that is, there is
greater accessibility to the facts. Phrasing the query in terms of all
facts may focus participants' attention on greater competition for
Fan 3 concepts than for Fan 1 concepts. Thus, we thought that we
might see increased predictions as fan increased in the at least one
condition, supporting accessibility, and decreased predictions in
the all condition, supporting competition.
10
..1700
I 1600-
^ 1500-
| 14OO
S 1300-
Srgetonstudted
-MJpteStudted
-MjtpeNonstudted
2
Fan
Figure 4. Mean reaction times for both studied and nonstudied sentences
as a function of fan and location on the verification task for Experiment 3.
Method
Twenty participants were randomly assigned to the at least one condi-
tion, referred to hereafter as the JOL-one condition, and the other 20
participants were randomly assigned to the all condition, referred to here-
after as the JOL-all condition.
The materials, procedure, and design were identical to that used in
Experiment 2 with the exception of two different sets of instructions for the
JOL phase. One group of participants, JOL-one, made predictions for
correctly recognizing at least one studied sentence that contained the
JOL-queried concept, whereas the other group, JOL-all, made predictions
for correctly recognizing all studied sentences involving a concept.
Results and Discussion
Learning phase. Participants took an average of 4.57
(SD = 1.31) blocks to reach criterion. Neither fan nor location
significantly affected mean proportions correct on the cued-recall
test during learning (see Table 3). All effects were nonsignificant,
largest F(l, 39) = 1.59, MSE = 0.01, for location.
JOL magnitude. Table 4 displays the median ratings of par-
ticipants' JOLs for each level of fan as a function of location and
JOL condition (one vs. all). These data were entered into a 2 (JOL
condition) X 3 (fan) X 2 (location) mixed-model ANOVA yield-
ing only two significant main effects: JOL condition, F(l,
38) =8.51, MSE = 2.83, and fan, F(2, 76) = 15.66, MSE =0.53.
The interactions were all nonsignificant: Location X Fan X JOL
Condition, F(2, 76) = 1.67, MSE = 0.55; Location X Fan, F < 1;
Location X JOL Condition, F(l, 38) = 1.78, MSE = 0.46; JOL
Condition X Fan, F(2, 76) = 2.30, MSE = 0.53. The location
manipulation was nonsignificant as well (F < 1).
Verification task performance. Figure 4 displays the mean
RTs for verifying whether a sentence had been studied as a
function of fan, location (SL vs. ML), and studied-nonstudied. A 2
(location) X 2 (studied vs. nonstudied) X 3 (fan) repeated mea-
sures ANOVA showed that overall, participants were quicker to
verify studied sentences (1,520 ms) than nonstudied sentences
(1,569 ms), F(l, 39) = 16.79, MSE = 39,206.21. They also
verified SL sentences more quickly (1,518 ms) than ML sentences
(1,571 ms), F(l, 39) = 15.11, MSE = 47,066.63. As fan increased,
there was an increase in response latencies (1,426 ms, 1,557 ms,
and 1,652 ms), F(2, 78) = 24.19, MSE = 83,237.73. Most impor-
tant, the Location X Fan interaction was significant, F(2,
78) =4.04, MSE =54,880.63. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that
fan was significant for both the SL sentences, F(l, 78) = 12.78,
MSE = 61,136.30, and ML sentences, F(2, 78) = 18.90,
MSE =76,982.07. Pairwise comparisons using Tukey corrections
(F
T
=6.09) indicated that Fan 1 concepts did not differ from Fan 2
concepts for the SL sentences, F(l, 39) = 1.92, MSE =67485.72,
Table 4
Judgment of Learning (JOL) Medians From Experiment 3 by
JOL Condition, Location, and Fan
JOL condition
One
All
Location
Single
Multiple
Single
Multiple
1
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.75
Fan
2
7.00
7.00
5.75
5.75
3
6.75
7.00
5.75
5.50
1178 McGUIRE AND MAKI
but Fan 1 and Fan 2 concepts were responded to faster than Fan 3
concepts, F(l, 39) = 45.63, MSE = 32,443.67, and F(l,
39) =8.79, MSE =83,479.49, respectively. Pairwise comparisons
for the ML sentences showed that Fan 1 concepts were responded
to faster than both Fan 2 concepts and Fan 3 concepts, Fs(l,
39) = 21.02 and 34.31, respectively (MSEs = 80,124.62
and 75,322.57). RTs for Fan 2 did not differ from Fan 3 RTs, F(l,
39) = 1.27, MSE = 75,499.02. All other interactions were not
significant, largest F(l, 39) = 1.91, MSE = 36,333.75, for Stud-
ied-Nonstudied X Location.
As fan increased, participants' error rates increased as well with
mean error rates at 1.8%, 3.6%, and 4.9% for Fan 1, 2, and 3
sentences, respectively. Analysis of participants' error rates re-
vealed a significant fan effect, F(2, 78) =9.84, MSE =0.004. No
other effects were significant, largest F( l , 39) = 3.31,
MSE = 0.002, for the location effect.
The primary purpose of Experiment 3 was to determine whether
a JOL instruction to predict performance on at least one fact versus
all facts related to a concept would provide evidence for accessi-
bility and competition, respectively. Participants instructed to pre-
dict future verification performance for at least one sentence
containing a JOL-queried concept were more confident overall
than participants who were instructed to base their JOLs on rec-
ognizing all studied sentences containing the queried concept. For
both conditions, though, JOLs decreased as a function of fan, and
the absence of an interaction between instructions and fan suggests
that the size of the fan effect was similar in the two instructional
conditions. This outcome is inconsistent with predictions from the
accessibility account of JOLs. Instead, our results support the role
of competition in JOLs.
General Discussion
There are three major points resulting from our study. First,
despite having learned all material to approximately the same
level, participants' JOLs varied by fan. For all three experiments,
JOLs decreased in magnitude as fan increased. Second, we pro-
duced an attenuated fan effect in Experiments 2 and 3 for verifi-
cation RTs but not for JOLs. Finally, in a direct test of the
accessibility hypothesis using an instructional manipulation, JOLs
decreased as fan increased, whether participants were basing JOLs
on retrieval of all facts or just one fact for each sentence.
Previous investigations of metamemory have reported conflict-
ing findings. Koriat (1993, 1995) demonstrated that accessibility
played a critical role in predictions of future memory performance.
Accordingly, more information retrieved about queried concepts
resulted in higher judgments. In contrast, Schreiber and Nelson
(1998; Schreiber, 1998) demonstrated that more information asso-
ciated with queried items in memory resulted in lower judgments.
Maki (1999) corroborated Schreiber and Nelson's findings, show-
ing that competition in the form of retroactive interference resulted
in lower judgments. On the one hand, studies associated with the
accessibility hypothesis have shown that more information results
in higher judgments; on the other hand, studies in a competition
framework have shown that more information results in lower
judgments. Our study attempted to resolve these contrasting results
by manipulating the integration of information to reveal whether
integration determines the importance of accessibility and compe-
tition in JOLs. However, our manipulation (SL vs. ML sentences)
did not produce a significant reduction in the fan effect for
metamemory judgments, although it reduced the fan effect for
verification RTs. Still, integration warrants further investigation
because a higher degree of integration may be necessary before
more information results in an increase in JOL magnitude.
A third model of metamemory, cue familiarity (Metcalfe,
Schwartz, & Joaquim, 1993; Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992), was not
discussed earlier because it was developed for nonrecalled items
that were not well learned. However, it is worth noting that our
results are inconsistent with an extension of the cue familiarity
account. Participants were exposed to Fan 3 concepts more than
either Fan 2 or Fan 1 concepts both during study and during the
test trials. In fact, the queried concepts from Fan 3 sentences were
presented six times during each study-test block, whereas the
Fan 1 concepts were presented only twice. More exposure should
have resulted in an increase of familiarity for such concepts, but it
did not result in an increase in JOLs. JOLs were lower for the
Fan 3 than for the Fan 1 concepts in all three experiments.
Our findings suggest that we do not necessarily monitor the
actual contents of memory when making predictions but may
instead rely on nonanalytic inferences. This line of thought is
similar to the more formal accessibility hypothesis (Koriat, 1993,
1995) as well as to the cue-familiarity hypothesis (Metcalfe et al.
1993; Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992). The competition hypothesis
also suggests the use of a nonanalytic heuristic, that is, that
metamemory judgments are based on the total amount of activa-
tion of associates in memory (Schreiber, 1998). Thus, all three
models posit that metamemory judgments are based on inferential
heuristics (Koriat, 1998) and not on direct access to memory.
Competition was the heuristic that was used in making JOLs in
the fan paradigm. However, JOLs were not based on the amount of
competition directly affecting memory, because the fan effect was
reduced for verification RTs in the SL condition relative to the ML
condition, but there was not a similar reduction for JOLs. Further-
more, proportion correct during learning did not vary consistently
with fan, but JOLs decreased consistently with fan. Our findings
further support the conclusion that a competition-like mechanism
operates more strongly at the metamemory level than at the level
of memory. This result extends the findings of several earlier
studies (Maki, 1999; Schreiber, 1998; Schreiber & Nelson, 1998)
that supported the role of competition in metamemory judgments.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of prepositional information from long-
term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451474.
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999a). The fan effect: New results and
new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186-
197.
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999b). Process, not representation:
Reply to Radvansky (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-
eral, 128, 207-210.
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model
of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639.
Koriat, A. (1995). Dissociating knowing and the feeling of knowing:
Further evidence for the accessibility model. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 124, 311-333.
Koriat, A. (1998). Metamemoiy: The feeling of knowing and its vagaries.
In M. Sabourin & F. Craik (Eds.), Advances in psychological science:
Vol. 2. Biological and cognitive aspects (pp. 461479). East Sussex,
UK: Psychology Press.
Maki, R. H. (1999). The roles of competition, target accessibility, and cue
EFFECT OF FAN ON METAMEMORY 1179
familiarity in metamemory for word pairs. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1011-1023.
Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity
heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 851-861.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework
and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and
motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 26, pp. 125-173).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nelson, T. O., Sheck, P., Dunlosky, J., & Narens, L. (1999, November).
What is the basis for judgments of learning (JOLs)for recallable items?
Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Ange-
les, CA.
Radvansky, G. A. (1999a). The fan effect: A tale of two theories. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 198-206.
Radvansky, G. A. (1999b). Memory retrieval and suppression: The inhi-
bition of situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-
eral, 128, 1-17.
Radvansky, G. A., Spieler, D. H., & Zacks, R. T. (1993). Mental model
organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 19, 95-114.
Schneider, W. (1995). MEL Professional User's Guide. Pittsburgh, PA:
Psychology Software Tools.
Schreiber, T. A. (1998). Effects of target set size on feelings of knowing
and cued recall: Implications for the cue effectiveness and partial-
retrieval hypotheses. Memory and Cognition, 26, 553-571.
Schreiber, T. A., & Nelson, D. L. (1998). The relation between feelings of
knowing and the number of neighboring concepts linked to the test cue.
Memory and Cognition, 26, 869-883.
Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1992). Cue familiarity but not target
retrievability enhances feeling-of-knowing judgments. Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1074-1083.
Received February 16, 2000
Revision received November 22, 2000
Accepted February 1, 2001
Members of Underrepresented Groups:
Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications
and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript re-
viewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable
experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging
members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write to Demarie Jackson at the
address below. Please note the following important points:
To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed
journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for
preparing a thorough, objective review.
To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical jour-
nals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review.
Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the
knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing re-
search.
To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed
information. Please include with your letter your vita. In your letter, please iden-
tify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of exper-
tise. Be as specific as possible. For example, "social psychology" is not suffi-
cientyou would need to specify "social cognition" or "attitude change" as well.
Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1-4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you
are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to
evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.
Write to Demarie Jackson, Journals Office, American Psychological Association, 750
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.