Mending metacognitive illusions in JOLs: when neither cognitive nor metacognitive feedback is effective.

Metacognitive monitoring of cognitive processes is not always accurate. Metacognitive illusions occur when metacognitive judgments rely on invalid information or fail to rely on valid information. This study tested the effectiveness of different forms of feedback in mending metacognitive illusions in judgments of learning (JOLs). Across four experiments, participants completed three study-test cycles with JOLs in which they studied different word lists. Participants received feedback or no feedback after each cycle. In Experiments 1 and 2, cognitive feedback about recall performance and JOL for each item was provided. In Experiments 3 and 4, additional metacognitive feedback about metacognitive illusions during the task was provided. Results showed that cognitive feedback was not effective for mending the font size illusion (Experiments 1 and 2), the stability bias (Experiment 1), or the font format illusion (Experiment 2). Additional metacognitive feedback partially remedied the stability bias in Experiment 3, but this effect did not replicate in Experiment 4. Regardless of whether participants received feedback and what type it was, the font size illusion decreased across cycles when manipulated orthogonally to a valid cue (Experiments 1, 3, and 4). In conclusion, this study shows that neither cognitive nor metacognitive feedback remedy metacognitive illusions.