Contribution of metamemory beliefs to age-related differences in the effect of emotion on judgments of learning.
Rattachement africain : cn, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
With the global aging of the population, the importance of understanding the characteristics and mechanisms of developmental changes in later life has grown. The present study explored age-related differences in the effect of emotion on judgments of learning (JOLs) in Chinese participants and delved deeper into the mechanisms underlying this effect. Experiment 1 observed that older participants showed a positivity effect on JOLs, whereas young participants demonstrated an emotional salience effect on JOLs, reflecting age-related differences in the effect of emotion on JOLs. To investigate the mechanisms underlying these age-related differences, Experiment 2 measured participants' metamemory beliefs about the effect of emotion on memory and found that older participants held a belief of the positivity effect, whereas young participants possessed a belief of the emotional salience effect. Experiment 3 collected data of beliefs and JOLs from the same participants and provided further evidence highlighting the contribution of metamemory beliefs to age-related differences in the effect of emotion on JOLs. These findings are essential for advancing the theoretical framework of metamemory and for extending lifespan theory of socioemotional selectivity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Contribution of metamemory beliefs to age-related differences in the effect of emotion on judgments of learning.
- Date Crossref
- 01/06/2025
- Éditeur
- American Psychological Association (APA)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.