{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026019690576652602, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035161744022503515, 'mean_word_length': 5.4389140271493215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In a year, memory will benefit from learning, tomorrow it won't: distance and construal level effects on the basis of metamemory judgments.

Metamemory judgments may rely on 2 bases of information: subjective experience and abstract theories about memory. On the basis of construal level theory, we predicted that psychological distance and construal level (i.e., concrete vs. abstract thinking) would have a qualitative impact on the relative reliance on these 2 bases: When considering learning from proximity or under a low-construal mindset, learners would rely more heavily on their experience, whereas when considering learning from a distance or under a high-construal mindset, they would rely more heavily on their abstract theories. Consistent with this prediction, results of 2 experiments revealed that temporal distance (Experiment 1) and construal level (Experiment 2) affected the stability bias--the failure to predict the benefits of learning. When considering learning from proximity or using a low-construal mindset, participants relied less heavily on their theory regarding the benefits of learning and were therefore insensitive to future learning. However, when considering learning from temporal distance or using a high-construal mindset, participants relied more heavily on their theory and were therefore better able to predict the benefits of future learning, thus overcoming the stability bias.