Search

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.

Although retrieval often enhances subsequent memory (the testing effect), a negative testing effect has recently been documented in which prior retrieval harms later recall compared with restudying. The negative testing effect was predicated on the negative generation effect and the item-specific-relational framework. The present experiments examine whether the negative testing effect persists over longer delays, whether the testing manipulation interacts with retention interval, and whether the negative testing and negative generation effects respond similarly to delay. Experiment 1 demonstrated a significant negative testing effect on an immediate free-recall test but not on a delayed test (after a 2-day retention interval). Furthermore, the retrieval condition produced less forgetting than the restudy condition. Under similar conditions (Experiment 2), generation likewise produced a negative effect on an immediate free-recall test but not after a 2-day delay. In addition, the generation condition produced less forgetting over 2 days than did the read condition. The results uncover important similarities between the mnemonic effects of retrieving information from episodic (testing effect) and semantic (generation effect) memory. The pattern of forgetting across delay also has relevance for accounts of the Testing × Retention interaction, a prominent phenomenon in the literature on the testing effect.

Though retrieving information typically results in improved memory on a subsequent test (the testing effect), Peterson and Mulligan (2013) outlined the conditions under which retrieval practice results in poorer recall relative to restudy, a phenomenon dubbed the "negative testing effect." The item-specific-relational account proposes that this occurs when retrieval disrupts interitem relational encoding despite enhancing item-specific information. Four experiments examined the negative testing effect, showing the following: (a) The basic phenomenon is replicable in free recall; (b) it extends to category-cued recall; (c) it converts to a positive testing effect when the final test is recognition, a test heavily reliant on item-specific information; (d) the negative testing effect in recall, robust in a pure list design, reverses to a positive testing effect in a mixed-list design; and (e) more generally, the present testing manipulation interacts with experimental design, such that an initially negative effect becomes positive or an initially positive effect becomes larger as the design changes from pure-list to mixed-list. The breadth of results fits well within the item-specific-relational framework and provides evidence against 2 alternative accounts. Finally, this research indicates that the testing effect shares important similarities with the generation effect and other similar memory phenomena.

Perhaps the most basic finding in memory research is the repetition effect--the fact that repetition enhances memory. Peterson and Mulligan (2012) recently documented a surprising "negative repetition effect," in which participants who studied a list of cue-target pairs twice recalled "fewer" targets than a group who studied the pairs only once. Words within a pair rhymed and across pairs, the target words were drawn from a small set of categories. In the repetition condition, the pairs were initially presented in a random order and then presented a second time blocked by the category of the target words. In the single presentation condition, the pairs were presented only in the blocked order. Participants in the former condition recalled fewer target words on a free recall test despite having seen the word pairs twice (the negative repetition effect). The encoding conditions necessary to produce this effect were examined in 4 experiments. Presenting the repetitions in a single study list elicited the negative repetition effect in free and category-cued recall. However, eliminating the strong within-trial, rhyme relationship eliminated the effect in both tests. Finally, presenting a disorganized but unrelated set of rhyming word pairs as List 1 reduced recall (relative to the single-presentation condition) to the same degree as the repetition condition. The negative repetition effect is due to reduced interitem relational processing during the presentation of the organized list (or half list), a reduction that requires a competing within-target relationship but can be induced by an unrelated as well as identical set of word pairs.

Research suggests that spaced learning, compared with massed learning, results in superior long-term retention (the spacing effect). Son (2010) identified a potentially important moderator of the spacing effect: metacognitive control. Specifically, when participants chose massed restudy but were instead forced to space the restudy, the spacing effect disappeared in adults (or was reduced in children). This suggests spacing is less effective (or possibly ineffective) if implemented against the wishes of the learner. A closer examination of this paradigm, however, reveals that item-selection issues might alternatively explain the disappearance of the spacing effect. In the current experiments, we replicated the original design demonstrating that an item-selection confound is operating. Furthermore, relative to a more appropriate baseline, the spacing effect was significant and of the same size whether participants' restudy choices were honored or violated. In this paradigm, metacognitive control does not appear to moderate the spacing effect.

A fundamental property of human memory is that repetition enhances memory. Peterson and Mulligan (2012) recently documented a surprising "negative repetition effect," in which participants who studied a list of cue-target pairs twice recalled fewer targets than a group who studied the pairs only once. Words within a pair rhymed, and across pairs, the target words were drawn from a small set of categories. In the repetition condition, the pairs were initially presented in a random order and then presented a 2nd time blocked by the category of the target words. In the single presentation condition, the pairs were presented only in the blocked order. Participants in the former condition recalled fewer target words on a free recall test despite having seen the word pairs twice (the negative repetition effect). This phenomenon is explored in a series of 5 experiments assessing 3 theoretical accounts of the effect. The experiments demonstrate that the negative repetition effect generalizes over multiple encoding conditions (reading and generative encoding), over different memory tests (free and cued recall), and over delay (5 min and 2 days). The results argue against a retrieval account and a levels-of-processing account but are consistent with the item-specific--relational account, the account upon which the effect was initially predicated.

Across 3 experiments, we investigated the factors that dictate when taking a test improves subsequent memory performance (the "testing effect"). In Experiment 1, participants retrieving a set of targets during a retrieval practice phase ultimately recalled fewer of those targets compared with a group of participants who studied the targets twice, a "negative" testing effect. In Experiments 2 and 3, theoretically motivated modifications to the basic design of Experiment 1 reversed this pattern, demonstrating the more typical positive testing effect. The results from all 3 experiments were predicted by the multifactor account, an explanatory account applied to the "generation effect" (improved memory for self-generated material), which details why generation typically improves memory, as well as those conditions under which generation can impair memory performance. These results suggest the testing effect and the generation effect may be understood within a common framework.