Search

Prior testing can facilitate subsequent learning, a phenomenon termed the forward testing effect (FTE). We examined a metacognitive account of this effect, which proposes that the FTE occurs because retrieval leads to strategy optimizations during later learning. One prediction of this account is that tests that require less retrieval effort (e.g., multiple-choice relative to cued-recall) should lead to a smaller benefit on new learning. We examined the impact of interpolated multiple-choice or cued-recall testing (relative to no prior testing) on new learning of a four-section STEM text passage. The effect sizes associated with the FTE were numerically, though not significantly larger when the prior tests were cued-recall than multiple-choice, but only when interpolated judgments of learning were not queried. Further, when multiple-choice tests were made more difficult through lure similarity, the FTE was similarly increased. Finally, the FTE was eliminated entirely when participants provided four JOLs after reading each text section. We believe this elimination of the FTE stemmed from an increase in performance for the control participants induced by reactivity from repeated metacognitive queries requiring deep metacognitive reflection. Taken together, these experiments support a metacognitive account of FTE and have important implications for how educators and students should employ retrieval practice and leverage the benefits of metacognitive reflection to improve new learning.

Research has consistently shown that concealing facial features can hinder subsequent identification. The widespread adoption of face masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical and urgent need to discover techniques to improve identification of people wearing face coverings. Despite years of research on face recognition and eyewitness identifications, there are currently no evidence-based recommendations for lineup construction for cases involving masked individuals. The purpose of this study was to examine identification accuracy of a masked perpetrator as a function of lineup type (i.e., unmasked or masked lineups) and perpetrator presence (i.e., absent or present). In both experiments, discriminability was superior for masked lineups, a result that was due almost exclusively to higher hits rates in target-present conditions. These data suggest that presenting a masked lineup can enhance identification of masked faces, and they have important implications for both eyewitness identification and everyday face recognition of people with face coverings.

Test anxiety is a major concern in education because it causes uncomfortable feelings in test-anxious students and may reduce the validity of exam scores as a measure of learning. As such, brief and cost-effective interventions are necessary to minimize the negative impact of test anxiety on students' academic performance. In the present experiment, we examine two such interventions: expressive writing (Experiment 1) and an instructional intervention (Experiment 2), with the latter developed from a similar intervention for stereotype threat. Across four authentic exams in a psychology class, students alternated between completing the intervention and a control task immediately before completing the exams. Neither intervention was effective at reducing test anxiety or improving exam performance. The present results suggest that these interventions may not be successful in addressing the impacts of test anxiety in all classroom settings.

Practicing retrieval is a potent learning enhancer. Theoretical accounts of the testing effect generally suggest that the magnitude of the testing effect is dependent on retrieval practice performance, such that conditions that promote better retrieval practice performance should result in a greater testing effect. Empirical evidence, however, has been mixed. Although some studies showed a positive association between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect, others have shown either no relation or the reverse. In the present study, we experimentally manipulated retrieval practice performance using a retrieval-based response deadline manipulation and an encoding-based study trial manipulation. Across six experiments, the magnitude of the testing effect was independent of retrieval practice performance. However, when we aggregated the data across the experiments, participants with superior retrieval practice performance showed a greater testing effect—an individual difference. This dissociation between experimental and correlational outcomes suggests that the positive relation between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect is not causal, and indeed, simulation data showed that the correlation between retrieval practice performance and testing effect was an artifact. We discuss the challenges these findings present to existing accounts of the testing effect. Public Significance Statement: Practicing retrieval from memory can enhance learning and retention—the testing effect. However, research has produced mixed evidence about whether the benefits of retrieval depend on practice performance, with some suggesting that conditions that elicit better practice performance produce a greater testing effect, whereas others demonstrating either no effect or the opposite. In the present experiments, we showed that conditions that favored better retrieval practice performance did not produce a greater testing effect. These results challenge existing theories, and they demonstrate that students can reap similar benefits from retrieval practice regardless of whether or not learning conditions are optimized for successful retrieval practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Testing can potentiate new learning, which is often called the forward testing effect. One potential explanation for this benefit is that testing might enable participants to use more effective learning strategies subsequently. We investigated this possibility by asking participants to report their encoding strategies in a multilist foreign language learning paradigm with four preregistered experiments and one non-preregistered pilot experiment. In Experiments 1-3, participants learned three lists of Chinese-English pairs; one group took a test after every list (i.e., test condition) and the other group took a test only for the criterial List 3 (i.e., restudy condition). In addition, participants completed a transfer test and a study strategy survey. Although we found a forward testing effect in all experiments, participants in the test and restudy conditions did not report differences in strategies. In Experiments 4 and 5, we used a within-subject design so that we could correlate changes in strategy use with the magnitude of the forward testing effect on an individual level. Interestingly, individual differences in strategy change were moderately associated with the magnitude of the forward testing effect, but even here, strategy change did not mediate the effect of testing on performance. Overall, our data showed that, at least for foreign language learning of Chinese characters, interim testing did not enhance new learning by altering participants' subsequent encoding strategies. Moreover, our data showed that interim testing did not promote the transfer of Chinese language learning to novel characters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retrieving studied materials often enhances subsequent learning of new materials (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2014). However, retrieval has also been shown to impair new learning (Finn & Roediger, 2013). In this article, we attempted to determine when retrieval enhances and when it impairs new learning. We argue that testing impairs new learning when one intermixes testing with new learning, which biases participants to relearn the tested information at the expense of the new information. We refer to this as the "borrowed time hypothesis." Consistent with this idea, we reduced or eliminated test-impaired new learning by discouraging time borrowing. Moreover, testing enhanced new learning only when the test trials and new learning trials were presented in separate blocks. These results suggest that test-impaired new learning and test-enhanced new learning are based on different underlying mechanisms and that they are not simply the flipped side of the same coin.

The mechanism responsible for retrieval-induced forgetting has been the subject of rigorous theoretical debate, with some researchers postulating that retrieval-induced forgetting can be explained by interference (J. G .W. Raaijmakers & E. Jakab, 2013) or context reinstatement (T. R. Jonker, P. Seli, & C. M. MacLeod, 2013), whereas others claim that retrieval-induced forgetting is better explained by inhibition (M. C. Anderson, 2003). A fundamental assumption of the inhibition account is that nonpracticed items are suppressed because they compete for retrieval during initial testing. In the current study, we manipulated competition in a novel interpolated testing paradigm by having subjects learn the nonpracticed items either before (high-competition condition) or after (low-competition condition) they practiced retrieval of the target items. We found retrieval-induced forgetting for the nonpracticed competitors only when they were studied before retrieval practice. This result provides support for a critical assumption of the inhibition account.

Considerable evidence has shown that repeating the same misinformation increases its influence (i.e., repetition effects). However, very little research has examined whether having multiple witnesses present misinformation relative to one witness (i.e., source variability) increases the influence of misinformation. In two experiments, we orthogonally manipulated repetition and source variability. Experiment 1 used written interview transcripts to deliver misinformation and showed that repetition increased eyewitness suggestibility, but source variability did not. In Experiment 2, we increased source saliency by delivering the misinformation to participants via videos instead of written interviews, such that each witness was visibly and audibly distinct. Despite this stronger manipulation, there was no effect of source variability in Experiment 2. In addition, we reported a meta-analysis (k = 19) for the repeated misinformation effect and a small-scale meta-analysis (k = 8) for the source variability effect. Results from these metaanalyses were consistent with the results of our individual experiments. Altogether, our results suggest that participants respond based on retrieval fluency rather than source-specifying information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taking an intervening test between learning episodes can enhance later source recollection. Paradoxically, testing can also increase people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect--a finding termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES, Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). We conducted three experiments to examine this apparent contradiction. Experiment 1 extended the RES effect to a new set of materials. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that testing can produce opposite effects on memory suggestibility depending on the complexity of the source test. Specifically, retrieval facilitated source discriminations when the test contained only items with unique source origins. But when the source test included some items that had appeared in multiple sources, the intervening test actually increased source confusions. These results have implications for a wide variety of learning situations. We focused our discussion on eyewitness memory, source complexity, and reconsolidation. (Contains 4 tables.)

Eyewitnesses typically recount their experiences many times before trial. Such repeated retrieval can enhance memory retention of the witnessed event. However, recent studies (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009) have found that initial retrieval can exacerbate eyewitness suggestibility to later misleading information--a finding termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES). Here we examined the influence of multiple retrieval attempts on eyewitness suggestibility to subsequent misinformation. In four experiments, we systematically varied the number of initial tests taken (between zero and six), the delay between initial testing and misinformation exposure ([asymptotically equivalent to]30 min or 1 week), and whether initial testing was manipulated between- or within-subjects. University undergraduate students were used as participants. Overall, we found that eyewitness suggestibility increased as the number of initial tests increased, but this RES effect was qualified by the delay and by whether initial testing occurred in a within- or between-subjects manner. Specifically, the within-subjects RES effect was smaller than the between-subjects RES effect, possibly because of the influence of retrieval-induced forgetting/facilitation (Chan, 2009) when initial testing was manipulated within subjects. Moreover, consistent with the testing effect literature (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), the benefits of repeated testing on later memory were stronger after a 1-week delay than after a 30-min delay, thus reducing the negative impact of RES in long-term situations. These findings suggest that conditions that are likely to occur in criminal investigations can either increase (repeated testing) or reduce (delay) the influence of RES, thus further demonstrating the complex relationship between eyewitness memory and repeated retrieval. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure and 1 footnote.)

Although retrieval practice typically enhances memory retention, it can also impair subsequent eyewitness memory accuracy (Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). Specifically, participants who had taken an initial test about a witnessed event were more likely than nontested participants to recall subsequently encountered misinformation--an effect we called "retrieval-enhanced suggestibility" (RES). Here, we sought to test the generality of RES and to further elucidate its underlying mechanisms. To that end, we tested a dual mechanism account, which suggests that RES occurs because initial testing (a) enhances learning of the later misinformation by reducing proactive interference and (b) causes the reactivated memory trace to be more susceptible to later interference (i.e., a reconsolidation account). Three major findings emerged. First, RES was found after a 1-week delay, where a robust testing benefit occurred for event details that were not contradicted by later misinformation. Second, blockage of reconsolidation was unnecessary for RES to occur. Third, initial testing enhanced learning of the misinformation even when proactive interference played a minimal role. (Contains 3 footnotes, 2 tables and 3 figures.)

Numerous studies have demonstrated that repeated retrieval boosts later retention. However, recent research has shown that testing can increase eyewitness susceptibility to misleading post-event information (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). The present study examines the effects of warning on this counterintuitive finding. In two experiments, subjects either took an initial test or performed a filler task after they viewed a video event. They were then given post-event information before they took a final test. Critically, one group of subjects was warned about potential inaccuracies in the post-event narrative and the other group was not. Without a warning, subjects who received an initial test were more likely to endorse misleading post-event information, replicating the retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES) effect. However, this RES effect was eliminated when subjects were warned about the veracity of the narrative. These results are consistent with a retrieval fluency account of RES. (Contains 1 figure and 5 tables.)

Retrieval practice can enhance long-term retention of the tested material (the testing effect), but it can also impair later recall of the nontested material--a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). "Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory." "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20"(5), 1063-1087). Recent research, however, has shown that retrieval practice can sometimes improve later recall of the nontested material--a phenomenon termed retrieval-induced facilitation (Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). "Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material." "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135", 553-571). What drives these different effects? Two experiments were designed to examine the conditions under which retrieval induces forgetting and facilitation. Two variables, the level of integration invoked during encoding and the length of delay between retrieval practice and final test, were revealed as critical factors in determining whether testing facilitated or hindered later retrieval of the nontested information. A text processing framework is advanced to account for these findings. (Contains 9 figures.)

The testing effect, or the finding that taking an initial test improves subsequent memory performance, is a robust and reliable phenomenon--as long as the final test involves recall. Few studies have examined the effects of taking an initial recall test on final recognition performance, and results from these studies are equivocal. In 3 experiments, we attempt to demonstrate that initial testing can change the ways in which later recognition decisions are executed even when no difference can be detected in the recognition hit rates. Specifically, initial testing was shown to enhance later recollection but leave familiarity unchanged. This conclusion emerged from three dependent measures: source memory, exclusion performance, and remember/know judgments.

Classroom exams can assess students' knowledge of only a subset of the material taught in a course. What are the implications of this approach for long-term retention? Three experiments (N = 210) examined how taking an initial test affects later memory for prose materials not initially tested. Experiment 1 shows that testing enhanced recall 24 hr later for the initially nontested material. This facilitation was not seen for participants given additional study opportunities without initial testing. Experiment 2 extends this facilitative effect to a within-subjects design. Experiment 3 demonstrates that this facilitation can be modulated by conscious strategies. These results have implications for educational practice and the theoretical developments of the testing effect, associative memory, and retrieval inhibition.

We explored the effect of the degree of conceptual similarity between a witnessed event and an extra-event narrative on eyewitness suggestibility. Experiments 1A and 1B replicated Allen and Lindsay's (1998) finding that subjects sometimes intrude details from a narrative description of one event into their reports of a different visual event. Those experiments also showed that intrusion rates were even higher when the narrative described the visual event itself. Experiment 2 replicated those findings, but found no more intrusions from a thematically similar versus dissimilar narrative. In Experiment 3 we disguised the relationship between the narrative and visual event, and obtained more intrusions from a thematically similar than dissimilar narrative. In Experiment 4 we obtained a thematic similarity effect when the relationship between narrative and visual event was disguised, but none when it was not. Results are discussed from the perspective of the source-monitoring framework.