Search

When eyewitnesses see a crime, they often do so under physiological stress. Research suggests that stress disrupts memory accuracy, but less is known about whether stress impacts the relationship between confidence and accuracy. Whereas researchers generally agree that pristine encoding and retrieval conditions lead to a strong relationship between the two (Wixted & Wells, 2017), how violations of pristine conditions affect the relationship is unclear. In two experiments, participants encoded faces either under physiological stress (via a cold pressor task) or under control conditions. Participants were later given a recognition memory test for the faces and provided confidence judgments in their old/new decisions. As expected, stress impaired face recognition accuracy. However, we observed similar confidence–accuracy relationships regardless of stress condition. Though participants in the stress condition were less accurate in their identifications overall, they had the metacognitive awareness to scale back their confidence judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tran et al. (2015) evaluated whether engaging in practice testing versus restudy promotes transfer and concluded that testing does not enhance performance on a deductive reasoning task. The current research further evaluated Tran et al. (2015) and an alternative explanation for the observed effect—namely, that testing did not enhance memory for the information required to complete the deductive reasoning task. Learners studied premises from four scenarios and engaged in testing or restudy during practice. Following practice, learners completed a multiple-choice test that required them to deductively reason from premises. Results replicate Tran et al. (2015) by demonstrating that fill-in-the-blank testing does not promote transfer on a deductive reasoning task. Results also provide evidence suggesting that deductive reasoning depends on complete memory for requisite pieces of information and that testing effects on deductive reasoning are more likely to obtain under conditions that yield a memory advantage for testing versus restudy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although tests typically improve long-term retention, recent research suggests that certain types of tests may disrupt memory, referred to as the negative testing effect. According to one explanatory framework, this detrimental effect on memory results from tests disrupting organizational processing, which hinders the ability to make associations between items. From an educational perspective, these outcomes are concerning because they suggest contexts in which taking a test may impair subsequent retention. However, no research has explored whether the negative testing effect extends to more educational designs and materials. The goal of the current research was twofold: investigate the replicability of the negative testing effect by examining the original demonstration with a novel participant population and explore whether such organizational disruptions generalize to more ecologically valid materials. Outcomes establish the replicability of the negative testing effect and provide evidence that the detrimental effects of testing may not extend to educational material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research on testing effects (i.e., practice tests are more effective than restudy for enhancing subsequent memory) has focused on explaining when and why testing enhances memory. Of particular interest for present purposes, Zaromb and Roediger (2010) reported evidence that testing effects in part reflect enhanced relational processing, which refers to the encoding of similarity among to-be-learned items. The multifactor account of testing effects (Peterson & Mulligan, 2013) further distinguishes between processing of cue-target relations (intraitem relational processing) and processing of relations shared by targets from different items (interitem relational processing). The intriguing claim of this account is that testing enhances intraitem relational processing at the expense of interitem relational processing. Confirming predictions of this account, Peterson and Mulligan (2013) found negative testing effects on final free recall and on a measure of interitem relational processing (the same measures on which Zaromb and Roediger found positive testing effects). The original intent of the current research was to resolve this theoretical debate by replicating and extending the findings of Peterson and Mulligan (2013) to identify the locus of the apparent inconsistency in the outcomes reported in these 2 studies. However, 5 high-powered experiments affording 8 comparisons of testing versus restudy did not replicate the negative testing effect on final memory performance nor on most measures of interitem relational processing. Thus, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that testing does not impair relational processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research evaluated the extent to which the grain size of recall practice for lengthy text material affects recall during practice and subsequent memory. The grain size hypothesis states that a smaller vs. larger grain size will increase retrieval success during practice that in turn will enhance subsequent memory for lengthy text material. Participants were prompted to recall directly after studying each section (section recall) or after all sections had been studied (whole-text recall) during practice, and then all participants completed a final test after a delay. Results across 7 experiments (including 587 participants and 1,394 recall protocols) partially disconfirmed the predictions of the grain size hypothesis: Although the smaller grain size produced sizable recall advantages during practice as expected (ds from 1.02 to 1.87 across experiments), the advantage was substantially or completely attenuated across a delay. Experiments 2-7 falsified several plausible methodological and theoretical explanations for the fragility of the effect, indicating that it was not due to particular text materials, retrieval from working memory during practice, the length of the retention interval, the spacing between study and practice recall, a disproportionate increase in recall of unimportant details, or a deficit in integration of ideas across text sections. In sum, results conclusively establish an initially sizable but mysteriously fragile effect of grain size, for which an explanation remains elusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although memory retrieval often enhances subsequent memory, Peterson and Mulligan (2013) reported conditions under which retrieval produces poorer subsequent recall--the negative testing effect. The item-specific-relational account proposes that the effect occurs when retrieval disrupts interitem organizational processing relative to the restudy condition. Rawson et al. (2015), in contrast, failed to replicate the negative testing effect despite repeated high-powered attempts. This article examines the discrepant results, ruling out differences in procedures, and concludes that differences in participant population produced the varying outcome. Specifically, participants from the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Kent State University (KSU) completed the same version of the negative-testing paradigm and were assessed on several measures of cognitive ability (working memory capacity, Raven's progressive matrices, and SAT or ACT score). For the UNC sample, free recall scores and the amount of category clustering (a measure of organizational processing) was greater in the restudy than retrieval condition (i.e., the negative testing effect was found); for the KSU sample, there was no difference on either measure. Furthermore, in the restudy condition, recall and clustering was greater for UNC than KSU students whereas in the retrieval condition, there was no effect of site on either measure. As expected, measures of cognitive ability were greater for the UNC than KSU sample. The results indicate that the negative testing effect is replicable but is subject to limitation related to the participant population. An analysis in terms of the relationship between cognitive ability and memory predicted this pattern of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Declarative concepts are abstract concepts denoted by key terms and short definitions that can be applied in a variety of scenarios (e.g., positive reinforcement in psychology; Rawson et al., 2015). One common learning goal for declarative concepts is to instill knowledge that students can use to support the application of content in novel scenarios. Given theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from related literatures, one promising approach for supporting declarative concept application is learning examples. The purpose of the current research was to evaluate the utility of using examples as primary targets of learning for declarative concept application. In two experiments, participants read a textbook passage that included the definition and an example of 10 declarative concepts. Participants then learned the target material by recalling either the definition or the example of each concept. Across both experiments, declarative concept application was greater following practice focused on learning examples versus definitions. Results suggest that using this strategy may be an effective technique for supporting the application of definitions, which are foundational to many introductory courses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).