Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
= 0.25. Concerning the age differences, post-hoc tests
showed 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%).
198 C. M. Roebers: Strategic Regulation of Childrens Memory Reports
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 advantage
of 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, no
age-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
Swiss J Psychol 65 (3), 2006 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
C. M. Roebers: Strategic Regulation of Childrens Memory Reports 199
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 bonuses
and 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, different
patterns 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 from
each 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 childrens
ability 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 also
been 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 and
social 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 from
educational movies]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unter-
richt, 52, 5165.
Swiss J Psychol 65 (3), 2006 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern
200 C. M. Roebers: Strategic Regulation of Childrens Memory Reports
Bjorklund, D. F., & Rosenblum, K. E. (2001). Childrens use of
multiple and variable addition strategies in a game context.
Developmental Science, 4, 184194.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Rosenblum, K. E. (2002). Context effects in
childrens selection and use of simple arithmetic strategies.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 3, 225242.
Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of childrens
memory. 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 source
monitoring ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psycholo-
gy, 77, 169196.
Dudukovic, N. M., Marsh, E. J., & Tversky, B. (2004). Telling a
story or telling it straight: The effects of entertaining versus
accurate 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: Developmental
and cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodman, G. S., Sharma, A., Thomas, S. F., & Golden Considine,
M. (1995). Mother knows best: Effects of relationship status
and 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 stranger
misinformation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 19, 527542.
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control
processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psy-
chological Review, 103, 490517.
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1998). The role of metacognitive
processes in the regulation of memory performance. In G.
Mazzoni & T. O. Nelson (Eds.), Metacognitive and cognitive
neuropsychology: 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 children
control the accuracy of their memory reports? Journal of Ex-
perimental Child Psychology, 79, 405437.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical
framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psy-
chology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and
theory (Vol. 26, pp. 125173). New York: Academic Press.
Peterson, C., & Whalen, N. (2001). Five years later: Childrens
memory for medical emergencies. Applied Cognitive Psy-
chology, 15, S7S24.
Ornstein, P. A., Haden, C. A., & Hedrick, A. M. (2004). Learning
to 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 and
adults event recall and suggestibility. Developmental Psy-
chology, 38, 10521067.
Roebers, C. M., & Fernandez, O. (2002). The effects of accuracy
motivation on childrens and adults event recall, suggestibil-
ity and their answers to unanswerable questions. Journal of
Cognition and Development, 3, 415443.
Roebers, C. M., & Howie, P. (2003). Confidence judgments in
event 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 of
accuracy motivation on childrens and adults event recall.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 313329.
Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2001). Memory for an observed
event in the presence of prior misinformation: Developmen-
tal patterns in free recall and identification accuracy. British
Journal 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.), Handbook
of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and lan-
guage (5th Ed. pp. 467521). New York: Wiley.
Claudia M. Roebers
Institute of Psychology
University of Berne
Muesmattstrasse 45
CH-3000 Berne
Roebers@psy.unibe.ch
Swiss J Psychol 65 (3), 2006 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern