Confidence ratings are better predictors of future performance than delayed judgments of learning.

What is the best way to predict future memory performance? The intuitive answer is through judgments of learning (JOLs), in which people estimate how likely they are to remember something in the future. Recent theory, however, suggests that a retrospective confidence rating made just after a retrieval attempt might be a better predictor in some situations. In three preregistered experiments, we compared delayed JOLs to confidence ratings. People studied paired associates (E1) or psychology vocabulary terms (E2 & E3), then took a practice cued-recall test in which they made either a JOL or confidence rating after each response. They then took a final test. In Experiment 1, confidence ratings offered higher resolution (metacognitive accuracy) of memory for paired associates than did JOLs, but in Experiments 2 and 3, the advantage of confidence ratings was much smaller. A mini meta-analysis indicated that confidence ratings have a small advantage in predicting future performance over delayed JOLs. We argue that the two judgments rely on similar cues, and that even though JOLs explicitly ask people to predict future performance, doing so does not enhance prediction accuracy. Rather, the presence of a retention interval in the JOL cue adds variability to the judgment process.