memorie strategica la copii

8/12/2019 Memorie Strategica La Copii

1/8

Swiss Journal of Psychology 65 (3), 2006, 193200

During the last decades, research on human memory and

memory development has mainly focused on the quantita-

tive aspects of memory performance (i.e., how many items

of the list can the individual remember correctly?). How-

ever, it is now again widely recognized (Bartlett, 1932) that

in many everyday memory tasks (for example, self-regu-

lated learning situations, academic tests, forensic inter-

views) memory reports stem from an active reconstruction

of the past. The reconstructive nature of recollections ne-

cessitates an emphasis on quality (i.e., to what degree does

the original information and the memory report corre-

spond?) rather than quantity as the critical factor for whichmemories are evaluated. As a result, the focus of experi-

mental memory research both in adults and children has

changed considerably during the last years. Increasingly

more research is investigating individualscompetencies to

strategically regulate memory performance. Strategic reg-

ulation of memory accuracy involves, on the one hand, the

use of metacognitive monitoring and control processes

(Nelson & Narens, 1990) and, on the other hand, the con-

sideration of the social situation and the demand charac-

teristics in which a memory report is given (Koriat, Gold-

smith, & Pansky, 2000).

The ability to strategically regulate memory performance

comes into play in any memory (test) situation in which the

individual has the option to decide which information to

provide and which information to withhold, for example,

in situations in which there is uncertainty whether the an-

swer is going to be correct or because the test situation em-

phasizes memory accuracy rather than quantity. A test sit-

uation such as free recall (Tell me everything you

remember about it!) typically motivates powerful strate-

gic decisions about which information to provide, what de-

gree of detail or from which perspective to report

(Dudukovic, Marsh, & Tversky, 2004). Empirical studieshave repeatedly shown that although such free recall tasks

are difficult and yield only small amounts of information,

the accounts are highly accurate, independent of age (e.g.,

Bruck, Melnyk, & Ceci, 2000; Peterson & Whalen, 2001;

Roebers & Schneider, 2001). Thus, strategic regulation can,

under certain and facilitating conditions, occur from a rel-

atively early age on.

However, strategic memory decisions appear to be much

more complicated and difficult in cued recall, for example

when asked to answer specific questions. Koriat and Gold-

smith (1996) have outlined a theoretical model that speci-

Swiss J Psychol 65 (3), 2006 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern

Original Communication

Developmental Progressionin Childrens Strategic Memory

RegulationClaudia M. Roebers

University of Berne,Switzerland

A developmental study was conducted that investigated 7- to 11- years-olds ability to strategically regulate their memory performance. Thestudy, based on Koriat and Goldsmiths (1996) theoretical framework, sought to stimulate strategic regulation processes. In order to do so, thethreshold to provide or withhold answers was manipulated and included bonuses for correct responding and penalties for incorrect answers.

Participants were shown a video concerning the production of sugar from beets and were individually interviewed a week later. Responses hadto be made to both answerable and unanswerable questions in both an open-ended and a yes/no question format. The results revealed that de-pending on the question format, there were different effects of the threshold manipulations on the frequencies of correct, incorrect, and I dontknow responses. Although there were no differences in response behaviour between the 1:0 and 1:1 incentives conditions when the questionswere open-ended, children were able to differentially respond to the two bonus-to-penalty ratios when the questions were in yes/no format. Con-

sistently, there were no interactions between age and response threshold indicating that strategic regulation competencies develop slowly butcontinuously during the primary school years showing the first signs of emerging competencies from an age of 7 onwards.

Keywords: memory development, metacognition, recall accuracy, monitoring, control processes

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185.65.3.193


2/8

194 C. M. Roebers: Strategic Regulation of Childrens Memory Reports

fies the conditions under which individuals can utilize mon-

itoring and control processes for the strategic regulation of

memory accuracy in cued recall tasks. According to this

model, asking for a specific detail will elicit several possi-

ble answers. Each piece of information is then assessed in

terms of the probability that it is correct. In the next step,

the individual decides to volunteer or withhold that infor-mation (control process) given a previously set response cri-

terion. The response criterion is sensitive to many factors

such as the situational demands of an interview situation

(e.g., the interviewer; Jackson & Crockenberg, 1998; Good-

man, Sharma, Thomas, & Golden Considine, 1995) or in-

centives for correct answers and penalties for incorrect an-

swers (e.g., Koriat & Goldsmith, 1998; Roebers, Moga, &

Schneider, 2001).

Thus, memory accuracy is dependent not only on the un-

derlying memory trace but also on two metacognitive pa-

rameters: monitoring effectiveness (i.e., the validity of con-

fidence judgments) and control sensitivity (i.e., defining the

threshold with respect to the social situation). When mon-itoring is precise, possibly incorrect answers are screened

out which leads to an increase in memory accuracy. When

monitoring is poor, the wrong answers are screened out,

without any benefit to memory accuracy. In control sensi-

tivity, a low response criterion should lead to more specif-

ic answers, some of which might turn out to be incorrect.

A strict response criterion, conversely, should lead to only

a few specific answers, all of which the individual is very

sure of, and also to many answers being withheld, some of

which would in fact be correct (i.e., quantity-quality trade

off). Thus, based on the theoretical framework proposed by

Koriat and Goldsmith (1996), the unique contributions of

each different factor can be isolated from each other, that isretention (memory), monitoring (validity of confidence

judgements), and control processes (as a function of the re-

sponse criterion).

Developmental research on the validity of the theoreti-

cal framework is still at a very early stage and to date lim-

ited to event recall tasks. Applying the theoretical model

and experimental design developed by Koriat and Gold-

smith (1996), Roebers and Schneider (2001) showed that

when trying to remember details of a movie children as

young as 6 years were able to significantly increase their

overall recall accuracy when answering unbiased, specific

questions under a relative strict response criterion (get one

and lose one token for every correct and incorrect answer,respectively; 1:1 bonus-to-penalty). These responses were

obtained compared to children interviewed under a more

liberal response criterion (no bonuses). However, in a fol-

low-up study (Roebers & Fernandez, 2002) cases in which

children were no longer taken away a token for incorrect

responding, the benefit observed for open-ended questions

was due to both, a significant increase in correct responses

and also to fewer incorrect responses. Although the model

predicts fewer incorrect and more I dont know respons-

es (indicating adequate metacognitive control processes)

for a high threshold, in this study children achieved an in-

crease in memory accuracy by other means when faced with

the 1:0 bonus-to-penalty ratio (Roebers & Fernandez,

2002). This pattern of results for a strict response criterion

was confirmed in another recent study using the same ex-

perimental manipulations and memory task (Roebers &

Schneider, 2005). Thus, there is now growing evidence that

the theoretically assumed independent contribution ofmemory and metacognitive processes for accurate remem-

bering may not hold for children. Although, Koriat and

Goldsmith (1996), have shown that monitoring and control

processes are as important as memory factors for the strate-

gic regulation of memory accuracy, studies including chil-

dren of various ages underline the importance of memory

retrieval as the base for monitoring and control processes

(Roebers & Schneider, 2005).

The methodological problems associated with memory

factors (confounding age differences in encoding, retriev-

ing and monitoring) can be eliminated when prompting sub-

jects to report about information that was never encoded,

that is, when including unanswerable questions in an inter-view or a memory test. Unanswerable questions cannot be

answered correctly by any participant, simply because the

information in question was never provided. In order to

identify an unanswerable question, monitoring and control

processes are necessary, which include realizing that con-

fidence judgments for any upcoming answer are low and

consequently giving an appropriate I dont know re-

sponse. Age-related differences in the occurrences of ap-

propriate I dont know responses to unanswerable ques-

tions thus mirror age-related differences in metacognitive

competencies. So far, there is only one study that applied

the theoretical framework of Koriat and Goldsmith (1996),

and also included unanswerable questions. Roebers andFernandez (2002), showed that, when rewarded for correct

answers, childrens ability to correctly identify unanswer-

able questions and to appropriately respond with I dont

know increased significantly, independent of age (I dont

know responses were notrewarded).

Stemming from these findings, the present study ad-

dresses some open questions regarding childrens ability to

strategically regulate memory accuracy. First, two different

bonus-to-penalty ratios will be contrasted to investigate

whether only pronounced manipulations of the response

threshold increases the dont know responses in a young

sample. This can be interpreted as a unique contribution of

control processes for increases in memory accuracy. Sec-ond, the present study aims to expand the application of the

theoretical model to other stimulus materials. While previ-

ous studies have exclusively used purely episodic stimuli,

in the current study more semantic information is present-

ed. Although this is done in an episodic context (presenting

children an educational television program), the cued recall

task taps mainly semantic knowledge (on sugar production)

and thus resembles more everyday testing situations in

school than previous interviews did.

A third so far unanswered question concerns childrens

strategic memory competencies that will be addressed in



3/8

C. M. Roebers: Strategic Regulation of Childrens Memory Reports 195

the current study by focusing on the test format. Cued re-

call implies the option to withhold answers and thus allows

strategic regulation processes. Within this test format, how-

ever, two different question formats need to be considered

separately: open-ended wh-style and the yes/no question

format. These two question formats can be seen to repre-

sent two extremes of social impact that provide a particu-lar answer resulting, in terms of the underlying theoretical

model, in two different a priori response thresholds. While

open questions do not suggest a specific or preferred an-

swer and thus result in a stricter response criterion, yes or

no questions to which the correct answer is no may im-

ply an invitation to acquiesce to the wrong answer and there-

fore result in a more liberal response criterion. Many stud-

ies have shown that depending on a childs age, memory

accuracy varies significantly across the two question for-

mats (e.g., Bruck & Ceci, 1999 for a review). Consequent-

ly, the model predicts different patterns of results indicat-

ing differences in the strategic regulation of memory

performance in response to different question formats, as afunction of the individuals age.

Method

Participants

A total of 142 participants took part in the study. There were

47 7-year-olds (23 girls, 24 boys,M= 92 months, SD = 5

months), 47 9-year-olds (23 girls, 24 boys,M= 118 months,

SD = 6 months), and 48 11-year-olds (24 girls, 24 boys,M

= 142 months, SD = 7 months). Within each age group, chil-

dren were randomly assigned to one of three experimentalconditions, with the only constraint that girls and boys were

approximately equally distributed within each condition.

All children lived in the region of Berne, Switzerland, were

recruited from three different schools and came from di-

verse socioeconomic backgrounds. Parents gave informed

written consent prior to the study.

Procedure

In the first phase of the experiment, small groups of 5 to 10

children from a single age group were shown a short video

(7 minutes) about the production of sugar from sugar beets.This video was shown in an empty multi-purpose classroom

using a DVD player and a projector producing a 12 me-

ter image on a silver screen. Once children were seated, the

experimenter told them he/she was interested in their opin-

ion of the film. This was done to prevent any intentional re-

hearsal strategies. After viewing the video, participants

were asked if they liked the video, and if they considered it

appropriate for other children. After some very brief and

general comments, children were thanked for their cooper-

ation and brought back to their classroom.

In the second phase of the experiment, approximately one

week later (range 68 days), all the children were individ-

ually questioned about the video in a small private room at

their school. After a brief period of establishing rapport, the

experimenter directed childrens attention to the film, which

all of them remembered watching. Children in the Free Re-

port condition were given the following instructions: Well,

now Im going to ask you some questions about the film,and I want you to try the best you can to give me many and

only correct answers. If you are not sure what the right an-

swer is or if you dont remember it, thats o.k.! Nobody can

remember everything. Just tell me you dont remember or

youre not sure, o.k?. When the child indicated to have un-

derstood the instructions, the interview started. Children

were asked a set of 52 questions about the video, which will

be described in more detail in the Materials subsection.

Children in the other two conditions were first given the

same general accuracy instructions described above for the

Free Report condition, but they were additionally given a

complementary set of instructions. Children in the 1:0 In-

centives condition were told: for every correct answer, Illgive you one of these coins (moving towards the child one

of the mock gold coins placed on the table halfway between

the experimenter and the child); for every incorrect answer,

Ill take a coin for myself. If you answer with dont know

or dont rememberthe coin remains in the middle. Then,

childrens attention was directed to a variety of toys placed

on a separate table next to the experimenters table, and they

were told that the more gold coins they earn, the better the

toy that they could buy later on. We used across all age

groups a set of four age appropriate toys: two of higher val-

ue and two small-sized toys of lower value. The attractive-

ness and the age-appropriateness of the toys were piloted

with a small sample of children from each age group. In anycase, all children were allowed to select whichever toy they

wanted at the end of the session.

Children assigned to the 1:1 Incentives condition were

additionally instructed as follows: Let me give you 10 gold

coins as a start, because in a moment, when we start with

the interview, youll get one more coin for every correct an-

swer; for every incorrect answer, however, Ill take a coin

away from you and take it for myself. If you answer with

dont knowor dont remember all the coins stay where

they are. As in the 1:0 Incentives condition, childrens at-

tention was then directed to the variety of toys placed on a

separate table next to the experimenters table, and the same

explanations were given to the children (see above). Thus,the critical difference between the 1:0 and 1:1 Incentives

conditions is, that with the 1:0 bonus-to-penalty ratio there

is no penalty for incorrect responding, while in the 1: 1 con-

dition children are taken one token away for every incor-

rect answer.

Materials

The video was approximately 7 minutes long and depicts

the production of sugar in a sugar factory. A speaker ex-



4/8


plains the single production steps and machines in simple

words: The film starts by showing how a farmer harvests

the sugar beets and who brings them to a factory. Inside the

factory, they are first cleaned, then cut into pieces and

cooked. The resulting sugar juice is filtered, cooked again

and is finally centrifuged. This film is part of a widely seen

German speaking federal broadcasting program for chil-dren from 3 to 13 years called Die Sendung mit der Maus.

The video and most of the questions used in this study were

already used in previous experiments (e.g., Beuscher, Roe-

bers, & Schneider, 2005; Beuscher & Roebers, 2005).

Each participant was asked the same set of 52 questions

about the video by following the general structure of the

film. Within that interview, there were two question types,

answerable and unanswerable questions. Altogether, twen-

ty-two questions were answerable and the relevant infor-

mation was presented in the video. Twenty questions were

unanswerable and covered information that was not pre-

sented in the video. Within these two different question

types, the question format was also varied: half of the ques-tions of one type (answerable or unanswerable) were asked

using an open-ended question format (requested a one or

two word answer) while the other half was asked using a

yes or no question format. An example for an answerable

question in an open-ended question format is What colour

are the sugar beets?. An answerable question in a yes or

no question format is Is the liquid sugar white?. An unan-

swerable question in an open-ended question format is

Where is the water coming from with which the sugar beets

are washed? (not shown in the video), and an example for

an unanswerable question in a yes/no question format is

Do the sugar beets cuts have to be cooked for 3 hours?

(not mentioned during the film). Reliability of the resultingfour subgroups of question was generally high (Cronbach

= .71.79) and did not systematically vary between the

three different age groups).

The remaining ten questions served as filler questions,

that is, there were ten very easy questions asked in a posi-

tive leading format. These were mixed under the other crit-

ical questions in order to guarantee some correct respons-

es for every participant, to maintain the interviewers

credibility and to avoid uniformity of the questioning. The

filler questions were not included in the analysis reported

below.

Results

Data analysis was first performed on the answerable ques-

tions, and secondly on the unanswerable questions. In both

cases, analyses were separately run for the two question for-

mats (open-ended questions and yes or no questions) be-

cause they constitute two distinct test formats and pose dif-

ferent cognitive demands on the participants. Preliminary

data analysis yielded no systematic differences between

girls and boys and no significant interactions between sex

and age, condition, question type and question format.

Therefore, data was collapsed across gender. All results are

reported at thep < .05 level unless otherwise specified. New-

man-Keuls post-hoc tests were performed for single group

comparisons. In order to be able to directly compare the ef-

fect sizes across dependent variables, partial Eta2-values are

reported for significant effects.

Open-Ended Answerable Questions

Table 1 presents the mean percentages of correct, incorrect

and I dont know responses to the open-ended questions

as a function of age and experimental condition. The 33

ANOVA with age (7-, 9- and 11-year-olds) and condition

(1:1, 1:0, Free Report) as between-participants factors on

the percentages of correct answers revealed main effects of

age, F(2, 142) = 15.61, 2 = 0.19, and condition, F(2, 142)

= 3,39, 2 = 0.05, but no interaction (F< 1). Post-hoc tests

on the main effect of age indicated that 7- and 9-year-olds

(28% and 30%, respectively), who did not differ from oneanother, gave significantly fewer correct responses than did

11-year-olds (46%). The main effect of condition was due

to a significant difference between the Free Report (31%)

and the 1:0 condition (40%) with the 1:1 condition falling

in between the two other conditions (34%).


Table 1Mean percentages of Correct, Incorrect, and I dont know An-swers in Response to the Open-ended Answerable Questions as aFunction of Age and Experimental Condition (Standard Deviationsin Parentheses)

Free Report 1:0 Incentives 1:1 Incentives7-year-olds

% Correct 30.1 (13.9) 28.5 (20.2) 26.7 (17.1)% Incorrect 18.2 (10.5) 9.1 (13.3) 9.1 (11.5)% I dont know 51.7 (11.8) 62.4 (25.7) 64.2 (23.3)

9-year-olds% Correct 23.9 (10.9) 40.6 (19.1) 25.6 (11.6)% Incorrect 26.7 (14.3) 11.5 ( 9.3) 11.3 ( 9.1)% I dont know 49.4 (20.7) 47.9 (19.9) 63.1 (18.0)

11-year-olds% Correct 38.6 (15.0) 49.4 (18.2) 48.3 (19.3)% Incorrect 24.4 (15.5) 11.4 (13.1) 8.5 ( 8.4)% I dont know 36.9 (20.3) 39.2 (22.4) 43.2 (20.9)

An ANOVA on the percentages of incorrect answers to

the open-ended answerable questions with both age and

condition as between-participants factors revealed a main

effect of condition, F(2, 142) = 18.9, 2 = 0.22, but no main

effect of age (F< 1) and no interaction (F< 1). Collapsed

across the three age groups, participants in the Free Report

condition gave significantly more incorrect answers (23%)

than in the two other experimental conditions that did notdiffer from one another (10% and 11%, for the 1:1 and 1:0

condition, respectively).

The corresponding ANOVA on the percentages of I

dont know responses with age and condition as between-

participants factors revealed main effects of age F(2, 142)


5/8


= 11.36, 2 = 0.15, and condition, F(2, 142) = 3.38, 2 =

0.05, but no interaction (F< 1 ). Post-hoc tests on the main

effect of age revealed that 11-year-olds (40%) gave signif-

icantly fewer I dont know responses than 9- (54%) and

7-year-olds (60%) that did not differ from one another. The

main effect of condition was due to a reliable difference be-

tween the Free Report (46%) and the 1:1 condition (57%),with the 1:0 condition (50%) falling in between the other

two conditions and not differing from either of them.

Answerable yes or no Questions

Table 2 presents the mean percentage of correct, incorrect,

and I dont know responses to the answerable yes/no ques-

tions as a function of age and experimental condition. Again,

multivariate 34 ANOVAs with age and condition as be-

tween-participants factors were performed on the percent-

ages of correct, incorrect, and I dont know answers.

Analyses on the percentages of correct answers producedsignificant main effects of age, F(2, 142) = 6.44, 2 = 0.09,

and condition, F(3, 142) = 6.20, 2 = 0.08, but no interac-

tion (F< 1 ). Post-hoc tests on the age effect indicated that

the oldest age group (57%) gave significant more correct

answers than the two younger age groups who did not dif-

fer from each other (7-year-olds: 47% = 9-year-olds: 46%).

Post-hoc tests on the main effect of condition revealed sig-

nificantly higher percentages of correct answers in the two

incentives conditions (1:0 condition: 52% = 1:0 condition:

55%) in comparison to the Free Report condition (43%).

Finally, an ANOVA on the percentages of I dont know

responses to the answerable yes or no questions revealed

significant main effects of age, F(2, 142) = 3.67, 2 = 0.05,

and condition, F(2, 142) = 5.99, 2 = 0.08, but no interac-

tion (F< 1 ). With respect to the frequencies of I dont

know responses, the 1:1 condition (19%) yielded higher

frequencies than the two other conditions that did not dif-fer from one another (10% and 11%, for the Free Report

and 1:0 condition, respectively).

Unanswerable Questions in Open-Endedand yes/no Question Format

Table 3 presents the mean percentage of appropriate dont

know responses to the open-ended and yes or no unan-

swerable questions as a function of age and experimental

condition. Again and for the reasons outlined above, the two

question formats were analyzed separately. A two-way 34

ANOVA with age and condition as between-subject factorsapplied to the percentages of dont knowresponses to the

unanswerable open-ended questions revealed a main effect

of condition, F(2, 142) = 15.08, 2 = 0.19, but no main ef-

fect for age (F< 1) and no interaction (F< 1). Post-hoc tests

showed that the main effect of condition was due to signif-

icantly fewer appropriate I dont know responses in the

Free Report condition (63%) than in the two incentives con-

ditions that did not differ from one another (78% and 84%,

for the 1:0 and 1:1 condition, respectively).


Table 2Mean Percentages of Correct, Incorrect, and I dont know An-swers in Response to the Yes/No Answerable Questions as a Func-tion of Age and Experimental Condition (Standard Deviations inParentheses)

Free Report 1:0 Incentives 1:1 Incentives7-year-olds

% Correct 34.6 (16.7) 48.5 (13.6) 59.1 (14.8)% Incorrect 51.8 (21.9) 41.8 (14.9) 24.4 ( 9.2)% I dont know 13.6 (16.2) 9.7 ( 9.4) 16.5 (14.5)

9-year-olds% Correct 42.6 (18.7) 47.9 (14.4) 47.2 (20.5)% Incorrect 48.3 (23.2) 35.7 (17.0) 27.8 (15.8)% I dont know 9.1 (14.1) 16.4 (10.4) 25.0 (18.3)

11-year-olds% Correct 52.8 (10.1) 60.3 (20.4) 59.1 (20.2)% Incorrect 41.5 (13.3) 31.8 (17.2) 26.7 (18.3)% I dont know 5.7 ( 9.8) 7.9 ( 8.0) 14.2 (16.6)

An ANOVA on the percentages of incorrect answers to

the answerable yes/no questions yielded a strong main ef-

fect of condition, F(2, 142) = 17.52, 2 = 0.21, but no maineffect of age (F< 1) and no interaction (F< 1). Post-hoc

tests revealed that all three experimental conditions differed

significantly from each other (1:1 condition: 26% < 1:0 con-

dition: 36% < Free Report condition: 47%).

Table 3Mean Percentages of Adequate I dont know Answers in Re-

sponse to the Unanswerable Questions as a Function of Age, Ex-perimental Condition, and Question Format (Standard Deviationsin Parentheses)

Free Report 1:0 Incentives 1:1 Incentives

Open-ended7-year-olds 59.6 (20.9) 76.9 (16.1) 80.7 (10.9)9-year-olds 64.2 (31.0) 71.5 (20.6) 85.8 (13.7)

11-year-olds 64.2 (26.0) 83.5 (13.8) 85.2 (10.4)Yes/No

7-year-olds 26.3 (28.5) 36.7 (26.1) 48.7 (18.9)9-year-olds 25.6 (31.6) 50.0 (27.5) 65.0 (25.0)

11-year-olds 28.1 (35.4) 59.4 (31.3) 76.2 (16.7)

The two-way ANOVA on the unanswerable questions in

the yes or no question format revealed main effects of age,

F(2, 142) = 4.78, 2 = 0.07 and condition, F(2, 142) = 21.78,

2 = 0.25. Concerning the age differences, post-hoc testsshowed that only the difference between 7- (37%) and 11-

year-olds (55%) was significant, while the 9-year-olds fell

in the middle (47%). The experimental manipulation yield-

ed significant differences between all three conditions in

the expected order (Free Report: 27% < 1:0 Incentives: 49%

< 1:1 Incentives: 63%).


6/8


Discussion

The present study aimed to expand the empirical evidence

on the applicability of the theoretical framework from Ko-

riat and Goldsmith (1996) for childrens memory reports.

According to the authors, strategic regulation of memory

accuracy involves independent contributions of memory re-trieval, metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Ef-

ficient regulation results in a highly accurate memory re-

port because uncertain answers are withheld (decreases in

incorrect answers) and replaced with I dont know re-

sponses. Since previous studies have produced mixed re-

sults concerning the question under which task demands or

to what degree response threshold manipulations are nec-

essary to stimulate childrens strategic regulation abilities,

the present study directly compared different threshold ma-

nipulations with a control condition (Free Report) using two

different test formats and involving three different age

groups.

With respect to age differences, the expected advantageof older children in comparison to younger children was

found. Older children gave more correct answers to open-

ended and to yes/no questions than younger children there-

by confirming general findings from memory development

(Schneider & Bjorklund, 1998). Since a pilot study with 5

to 6 year olds and 7 to 8 year olds had shown that using this

specific film on sugar production and its questions result-

ed in floor effects for correct responding and an overcau-

tious answering behaviour in the youngest age group, the

present study involved somewhat older children compared

to previous studies (Roebers & Fernandez, 2002; Roebers

& Schneider, 2005). Consequently, direct comparisons in

the level of performance across studies are difficult. Nev-ertheless, the age differences and the differences in perfor-

mance for the two question formats certainly emphasise the

reliability of the data.

One of the major aims of the present study was to ex-

plore childrens ability to strategically regulate their mem-

ory performance for to-be-remembered information that is

less episodically structured and therefore represented in a

less script-like format. Comparisons between the three ex-

perimental conditions revealed that with respect to all de-

pendent measures and the different question formats chil-

dren did engage in strategic regulation activities. Although

the extent to which these mental activities were successful

varied considerably in all conditions, the Free Report con-dition differed consistently from the two conditions in

which the response threshold had been augmented. Both in-

centives conditions yielded either more correct and I dont

know and/or fewer incorrect answers than the Free Report

condition. Thus, the present study shows that children are

able to strategically regulate their memory reports when

more semantic knowledge is tested. The emergence of the

necessary skills, however, seems to take place later in de-

velopment. Children as young as 6 years may show first

signs of these emerging abilities when asked to report on

episodic or autobiographical information, however, weak-

er underlying memory traces and/or different underlying

memory representations appear to complicate the process-

es involved (Roebers et al., 2001). The existing literature

on the general development of episodic and autobiograph-

ical memory supports this assumption (Fivush & Haden,

2003).

Although a wide age range of children was studied, noage-dependent effects of the threshold manipulations

reached significance. The consistent lack of interactions be-

tween age and the experimental manipulations was also

found in previous studies (Roebers et al., 2001; Roebers &

Fernandez, 2002; Roebers & Schneider, 2005) and appears

to indicate relatively slow and continuous improvements in

the strategic abilities rather than a sudden on-set of these

processes. The literature on the development of metacog-

nitive monitoring and control competencies across the pri-

mary school years also suggests slow but continuous de-

velopmental pathways (Schneider, 1998). In so far, the

development of strategic memory abilities fits well into the

general picture of memory development (Schneider et al.,1998).

Among the major issues addressed in the present study

were (a) the investigation of the specific means by which

children achieve better memory performance and (b)

whether children are able to differentially respond to the

two different bonus-to-penalty ratios. While the model pre-

dicts decreases in incorrect and increases in I dont know

responses for any augmentation of the response threshold,

it is only through extreme manipulations of the response

threshold that effects that conform to the theory have been

observed in children. Similarly, moderate manipulations

lead to increases in correct responding (Koriat, Goldsmith,

Schneider, & Nakash-Dura, 2001; Roebers et al., 2001;2005). The present study revealed important results with re-

gard to these research questions. For both question formats,

there were fewer correct answers in the non-incentives con-

dition than in either incentives condition. In line with this

finding, there were also more incorrect answers in the non-

incentives condition than in either incentives condition,

again independent of question format. Thus, the increase in

response threshold through incentives positively affected

memory retrieval processes.

Furthermore, the study identified question format as an

additional factor in strategic control. The effects of the two

incentives conditions differed significantly as a function of

question format. For the open-ended questions, both in-centives conditions yielded the same pattern of results in

terms of incorrect and I dont know answers. The simi-

larities in response patterns here do, however, not neces-

sarily indicate that children are not sensitive to the differ-

ences between the two bonus-to-penalty ratios. For the

yes/no questions, in contrast, childrens answering behav-

iour differed significantly among the two incentives condi-

tions with, as predicted by the model, fewer incorrect and

more I dont know answers in the 1:1 than in the 1:0 in-

centives condition. Possibly, the results for the open-ended

questions are due to the fact that in the 1:0 condition, the



7/8


mean percentages of I dont know responses are relatively

high and the percentages of incorrect responses are low,

leaving relatively little scope for further improvement in the

1:1 condition. In the yes/no questions, the demand charac-

teristics of this question format when questioned normally,

may be ambiguous for children with respect to interview-

ers expectations.Another possible interpretation for these findings is that

monitoring effectiveness varies as a function of question

format. Convincing evidence for that assumption comes

from studies that directly investigate monitoring processes

(Roebers, 2002; Roebers & Howie, 2003; Roebers, von der

Linden, & Howie, in press). Consistently, childrens abili-

ty to monitor the correctness of their given answer was

shown to be more adequate and sophisticated when an-

swering open-ended compared to yes/no questions. Conse-

quently, control processes necessary for screening out in-

correct answers may be the result of imprecise monitoring.

Moreover, control sensitivity may be better for the yes/no

question format because the unequivocal rules of bonusesand especially of penalties for incorrect responding may re-

solve childrens problems how to deal with the demands of

the interview. While the yes/no questions somehow imply

that the interviewer knows the correct answers, penalties

for yielding (incorrect) answers (only given in the 1:1 con-

dition) prove the opposite to be the case. This can explain

why the 1:0 and the 1:1 conditions differed significantly in

terms of strategic regulation processes only when consid-

ering the yes/no questions.

The inclusion of both answerable and unanswerable

questions within one interview allowed the memory factor

and its effects on strategic memory competencies to be ex-

amined. Again, depending on the question format, differentpatterns of results emerged. For the open-ended questions,

increases in response threshold led to significant increases

in adequate I dont know responses to the unanswerable

questions while I dont know responses to answerable

questions were not affected. Thus, children from the age of

7 onwards proved to be able to metacognitively differenti-

ate between filling ones memory gaps (i.e., confabulating

an answer to an unanswerable question) and providing un-

certain answers to what were in principle answerable ques-

tions. On the other hand in the yes/no questions, the mem-

ory factor does not seem to play an equally important role.

For answerable and unanswerable questions likewise, the

three experimental conditions differed significantly fromeach other. The interpretation of unambiguous task de-

mands in the incentives conditions, helping children to cope

with the social demands of the specific yes/no question for-

mat and the bonuses received for resisting suggestions can

here again be considered.

It is obvious that the chosen procedure does not allow a

full generalization to academic testing situations in school.

The procedure involved an individual interview with im-

mediate and explicit on-line feedback about memory accu-

racy. In school, however, students receive immediate feed-

back only in oral test situations. In the more important

written tests, however, feedback is typically given days lat-

er. Thus, it remains to be seen whether, to what extent and

from what age children can strategically regulate their mem-

ory behavior under different assessments modes. Despite

this shortcoming, the present study should be seen as a first

step to explore childrens metacognitive and control com-

petencies in a school setting. The evidence for childrensability to strategically regulate memory reports about do-

main-specific knowledge in the current study, even though

still open for improvement, underlines that in principle, chil-

dren are sensitive to the demands of a test situation and are

potentially able to adjust their answering behaviour ac-

cordingly. Based on these and future findings, methods to

train children in strategic regulation and to include instruc-

tions for this cognitive domain in class need to be devel-

oped and evaluated.

In sum, the present study offers intriguing substantiation

that the use of incentives when answering open-ended ques-

tions result in increased retrieval efforts in children and

these means can improve their memory reports. When an-swering yes/no questions, in contrast, childrens improve-

ments in memory accuracy are achieved by theory-conform

increases of withholding uncertain answers when the re-

sponse threshold is increased. Although children practice

answering open-ended questions from an early age (Orn-

stein, Haden, & Hedrick, 2004), responding correctly to

yes/no questions, especially those that suggest a specific an-

swer, seems to be less familiar, more difficult to cope with

and appears to require explicit communicative rules. Thus,

there is a slow and continuous development of the neces-

sary skills that take place later in life when less familiar or

more difficult tasks are chosen. Such a context/task depen-

dency in childrens emerging cognitive abilities has alsobeen shown in many other areas (e.g., Bjorklund & Rosen-

blum, 2001; 2002) and encourages developmental progres-

sion in a more general way.

Author Note

I would like to thank Rahel Devenoge and Claudia Graf for

their help with the data collection, as well as the children,

parents and staff of the schools for their participation and

cooperation.

References

Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental andsocial psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beuscher, E., & Roebers, C. M. (2005). Does a warning help chil-dren to more accurately remember an event, to resist mis-leading questions, and to identify unanswerable questions?Experimental Psychology, 52, 232241.

Beuscher, E., Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2005). Was erin-nern Kinder von Lernfilmen? [What do children recall fromeducational movies]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unter-richt, 52, 5165.



8/8


Bjorklund, D. F., & Rosenblum, K. E. (2001). Childrens use ofmultiple and variable addition strategies in a game context.Developmental Science, 4, 184194.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Rosenblum, K. E. (2002). Context effects inchildrens selection and use of simple arithmetic strategies.Journal of Cognition and Development, 3, 225242.

Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of childrensmemory.Annual Review Psychology, 50, 419439.

Bruck, M., Melnyk, L., & Ceci, S. J. (2000). Draw it again Sam:The effect of drawing on childrens suggestibility and sourcemonitoring ability.Journal of Experimental Child Psycholo-gy, 77, 169196.

Dudukovic, N. M., Marsh, E. J., & Tversky, B. (2004). Telling astory or telling it straight: The effects of entertaining versusaccurate retellings on memory.Applied Cognitive Psycholo-gy, 18, 125144.

Fivush, R., & Haden, C. A. (Eds.) (2003).Autobiographical mem-ory and the construction of a narrative self: Developmentaland cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodman, G. S., Sharma, A., Thomas, S. F., & Golden Considine,M. (1995). Mother knows best: Effects of relationship statusand interviewer bias on childrens memory. Journal of Ex-perimental Child Psychology, 60, 195228.

Jackson, S., & Crockenberg, S. (1998). A comparison of sug-gestibility in 4-year-old girls in response to parental or strangermisinformation.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-ogy, 19, 527542.

Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and controlprocesses in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psy-chological Review, 103, 490517.

Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1998). The role of metacognitiveprocesses in the regulation of memory performance. In G.Mazzoni & T. O. Nelson (Eds.),Metacognitive and cognitiveneuropsychology: Monitoring and control processes (pp.97118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psy-chology of memory accuracy.Annual Review of Psychology,51, 481537.

Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., Schneider, W., & Nakash-Dura, M.

(2001). The credibility of childrens testimony: Can childrencontrol the accuracy of their memory reports?Journal of Ex-perimental Child Psychology, 79, 405437.

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: a theoreticalframework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psy-chology of learning and motivation: Advances in research andtheory (Vol. 26, pp. 125173). New York: Academic Press.

Peterson, C., & Whalen, N. (2001). Five years later: Childrensmemory for medical emergencies. Applied Cognitive Psy-chology, 15, S7S24.

Ornstein, P. A., Haden, C. A., & Hedrick, A. M. (2004). Learningto remember: Social-communicative exchanges and the de-velopment of childrens memory skills. Developmental Re-view, 24, 374395.

Roebers, C.M. (2002). Confidence judgments in childrens andadults event recall and suggestibility. Developmental Psy-chology, 38, 10521067.

Roebers, C. M., & Fernandez, O. (2002). The effects of accuracymotivation on childrens and adults event recall, suggestibil-ity and their answers to unanswerable questions. Journal ofCognition and Development, 3, 415443.

Roebers, C. M., & Howie, P. (2003). Confidence judgments inevent recall: Developmental progression in the impact of ques-tion format.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85,352371.

Roebers, C. M., Moga, N., & Schneider, W. (2001). The role ofaccuracy motivation on childrens and adults event recall.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 313329.

Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2001). Memory for an observedevent in the presence of prior misinformation: Developmen-tal patterns in free recall and identification accuracy. BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 507524.

Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2005). The strategic regulation

of childrens memory performance and suggestibility. Jour-nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 2444.

Roebers, C. M., von der Linden, N., & Howie, P. (in press).Favourable and unfavourable conditions for childrens confi-dence judgments.British Journal of Developmental Psychol-ogy.

Schneider, W. (1998). The development of procedural metamem-ory in childhood and adolescence. In G. Mazzoni & T. O. Nel-son (Eds.), Metacognitive and cognitive neuropsychology:Monitoring and control processes (pp. 121). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Schneider, W., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Memory. In W. Damon(Series Ed.), D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.),Handbookof child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and lan-guage (5th Ed. pp. 467521). New York: Wiley.

Claudia M. Roebers

Institute of PsychologyUniversity of BerneMuesmattstrasse 45CH-3000 [email protected]


memorie strategica la copii

Documents