Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect.

Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50011-3180, USA.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (Impact Factor: 3.1). 06/2011; 37(6):1547-52. DOI: 10.1037/a0024140
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous research has proposed that tests enhance retention more than do restudy opportunities because they promote the effectiveness of mediating information--that is, a word or concept that links a cue to a target (Pyc & Rawson, 2010). Although testing has been shown to promote retention of mediating information that participants were asked to generate, it is unknown what type of mediators are spontaneously activated during testing and how these contribute to later retention. In the current study, participants learned cue-target pairs through testing (e.g., Mother: _____) or restudying (e.g., Mother: Child) and were later tested on these items in addition to a never-before-presented item that was strongly associated with the cue (e.g., Father)--that is, the semantic mediator. Compared with participants who learned the items through restudying, those who learned the items through testing exhibited higher false alarm rates to semantic mediators on a final recognition test (Experiment 1) and were also more likely to recall the correct target from the semantic mediator on a final cued recall test (Experiment 2). These results support the mediator effectiveness hypothesis and demonstrate that semantically related information may be 1 type of natural mediator that is activated during testing.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background/Study Context: What people remember can be shaped by how they access and evaluate their memories as well as by events that happen after the original experience. This study examined how thinking about events in different ways after their occurrence can influence younger and older adults' memory for what really occurred. Methods: Younger adults (ages 18-22) and older adults (ages 65-88) saw and imagined pictures of objects and later evaluated each object 0, 1, or 3 times on a task that either required them to remember the objects in a general way (old or new?), in a more specific manner (perceived, imagined, or new?), or that required thinking about objects without regard to whether or how they were earlier experienced (e.g., judging their function or frequency in everyday life). Results: Results showed that probing items multiple times on the intervening tasks increased the number of items younger and older adults successfully remembered later but also increased source misattributions of claiming to have seen objects that were really imagined, with older adults showing lower recall but higher source errors. Exposure to items on the nonretrieval intervening tasks negatively affected later source memory, and remembering items without explicitly considering their source increased source errors even more that did the non-retrieval-based intervening tasks. Conclusions: These findings illustrate the negative impact of thinking about and nondiscriminately remembering past events on subsequent memory accuracy.
    Political Communication 10/2014; 40(5):555-577. · 1.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The finding that trying, and failing, to predict the upcoming to-be-remembered response to a given cue can enhance later recall of that response, relative to studying the intact cue-response pair, is surprising, especially given that the standard paradigm (e.g., Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009) involves allocating what would otherwise be study time to generating an error. In three experiments, we sought to eliminate two potential heuristics that participants might use to aid recall of correct responses on the final test and to explore the effects of interference both at an immediate and at a delayed test. In Experiment 1, by intermixing strongly associated to-be-remembered pairs with weakly associated pairs, we eliminated a potential heuristic participants can use on the final test in the standard version of the paradigm-namely, that really strong associates are incorrect responses. In Experiment 2, by rigging half of the participants' responses to be correct, we eliminated another potential heuristic-namely, that one's initial guesses are virtually always wrong. In Experiment 3, we examined whether participants' ability to remember-and discriminate between-their incorrect guesses and correct responses would be lost after a 48-h delay, when source memory should be reduced. Across all experiments, we continued to find a robust benefit of trying to guess to-be-learned responses, even when incorrect, versus studying intact cue-response pairs. The benefits of making incorrect guesses are not an artifact of the paradigm, nor are they limited to short retention intervals.
    Memory & Cognition 08/2014; · 1.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence‐based teaching (EBT) entails the use of empirically validated pedagogical tools and techniques that promote student learning. We offer a rationale for why psychology instructors should embrace EBT in their classrooms. We then review five areas of evidence offering specific tools and techniques that improve learning and retention: the testing effect, spaced learning, metacognition, writing to learn, and interteaching. We then briefly discuss how three student self‐regulated choices can promote learning. Finally, we urge psychology teachers and students to use the discipline's experimental findings to enhance student learning.
    Australian Journal of Psychology 03/2013; 65(1). · 1.08 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from