Metacognition and Depressive Symptomology: Using Judgments of Learning (JOLs) to Evaluate the Depressive Realism versus Negativity Hypotheses
This study sought to evaluate the validity of the depressive realism and negativity hypotheses, and to determine if an underconfidence with practice effect would be obtained. Several metacognitive judgments were studied, including prospective judgments (item-by-item JOLs and aggregate JOLs) and retrospective judgments (posttest performance estimates). A total of 58 participants studied Swahili-English word translations and were asked to make JOLs before being tested on the material. This study-test period was repeated three times. Depressive symptomology was measured using the CES-D, and individuals were split into low- or high-depressive groups based on their scores. A strong underconfidence with practice effect was obtained for item-by-item JOL bias scores and aggregate JOL bias scores, but not for PTPE bias scores. Generally, participants became underconfident by the second and third study-test period, as is seen with their item-by-item JOL bias and aggregate JOL bias scores. There was no statistically significant evidence found for either hypothesis, but there was evidence of support for the depressive realism hypothesis since high-depressive participants were less underconfident when making item-by-item JOLs. There was no evidence of support for the negativity hypothesis. Several limitations and future directions are discussed to further enhance this study.
metacognition, JOLs, depressive realism, negativity hypothesis, judgments of learning, confidence, metacognitive judgments
Haque, Z. (2023). Metacognition and depressive symptomology: Using Judgments of Learning (JOLs) to evaluate the depressive realism versus negativity hypotheses (Unpublished thesis). Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas.