Metamemory is a person’s knowledge about their own memory. Metamemory judgments are sometimes accurate and sometimes not. Eakin (2005) found a dissociation between metamemory predictions and memory performance under conditions of retroactive interference and attributed this dissociation to the accessibility heuristic. This study investigated whether the accessibility heuristic would be used to make metamemory predictions in the more complex context of the eyewitness memory paradigm. The results indicate that the accessibility heuristic was used to make metamamory predictions. Memory performance was better for control than misled critical items, but people predicted they would perform equally well in both conditions. It appears that in the less austere context of the eyewitness memory paradigm, the amount of information accessible for control and misled items was equal, and therefore, metamemory judgments were equal for control and misled items.

Research has examined how encoding or retrieval factors affect metamemory. Few studies have manipulated both an encoding and a retrieval factor in the same paradigm. The current experiments examined which factor had a greater impact on metamemory when both were manipulated. Attention was manipulated during encoding and Retroactive Interference was manipulated at retrieval.Two lists of word pairs were studied, with the second list including both new pairs and cues from the first list re-paired with a new target. The attention manipulation occurred when studying the first list in which participants denoted when one tone sequence changed to another. Participants gave predictions about the likelihood of future recall of the original targets either immediately following study (JOL) or in a separate phase after studying all pairs (DJOL). The Modified Opposition Test (MOT) was used in which a hint was used to direct participants to the correct list for recall. After all pairs were studied and predicted, participants completed a cued-recall test. In Experiment 1, DJOLs were used because they are collected between encoding and retrieval. Both factors impacted memory, but DJOLs were only impacted by the retrieval factor. A dissociation between memory and metamemory under retroactive interference was expected and replicates prior research (Eakin, 2005). In Experiment 2, JOLs were added; JOLs are measured during the encoding phase, allowing the impact of the encoding factor to be observed. Replicating Experiment 1, memory was affected by both the encoding and retrieval factor, but JOLs were impacted by the retrieval factor. Another comparison using a standard cued-recall test instead of the MOT, showed that JOLs were no longer influenced by the retrieval factor, but they still did not vary with attention. The results conclusively suggest that metamemory was not based on encoding factors, even when the retrieval factor is not influencing the predictions. Koriat’s (1993, 1994) accessibility heuristic can explain these results. Predictions were based on how much information came to mind when the prediction is made, regardless of whether that information is correct. Furthermore, metamemory predictions are based on heuristics that do not always follow memory outcomes.