Search

Based on the classic distinction between semantic and episodic memory, people answer general-knowledge questions by querying their semantic memory. And yet, an appeal of trivia games is the variety of memory experiences they arouse—including the recollection of episodic details. We report the first in-depth exploration of the memory states that arise for recalled answers to general-knowledge questions. In 2 experiments, participants classified their answers as learning memory or related memory forms of recollection, as feels familiar or just know forms of nonrecollection, or as a guess. A recollection state was reported for nearly half of the correct answers. Learning memory, related memory, and just know states showed similarly high accuracy and confidence—whereas the feels familiar state was much lower. The differences between familiarity and knowing highlight the importance of distinguishing these oft-conflated states. Our study establishes that episodic memory often contributes to retrieval of general-knowledge, and that the memory states arising during retrieval can be diagnostic of accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four experiments investigated the mnemonic effects of generating survival situations. People were given target words and asked to generate survival situations involving that stimulus (e.g., DOOR: "I'm in a house that's on fire, and I can escape through the door"). No constraints were placed on the generation process, other than that it must be survival-related and refer to the target stimulus. Following a series of these generation trials people were given a surprise retention test for the target words. Across four experiments the survival generation task produced significantly better retention than several deep processing controls including: (a) a pleasantness-rating task, (b) an autobiographical retrieval task, and (c) a task that required people to generate unusual uses for the target items. These results demonstrate the power of survival processing in a new way and provide diagnostic information about the proximate mechanisms that may underlie survival processing advantages. They also extend the generality of survival processing beyond the standard relevance-rating procedure that has been used in virtually all prior research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People frequently receive performance feedback that describes how well they achieved in the past, and how they could improve in future. In educational contexts, future-oriented (directive) feedback is often argued to be more valuable to learners than past-oriented (evaluative) feedback; critically, prior research led us to predict that it should also be better remembered. We tested this prediction in six experiments. Subjects read written feedback containing evaluative and directive comments, which supposedly related to essays they had previously written (Experiments 1-2), or to essays another person had written (Experiments 3-6). Subjects then tried to reproduce the feedback from memory after a short delay. In all six experiments, the data strongly revealed the opposite effect to the one we predicted: despite only small differences in wording, evaluative feedback was in fact recalled consistently better than directive feedback. Furthermore, even when adult subjects did recall directive feedback, they frequently misremembered it in an evaluative style. These findings appear at odds with the position that being oriented toward the future is advantageous to memory. They also raise important questions about the possible behavioral effects and generalizability of such biases, in terms of students' academic performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relation between working memory capacity (WMC) and recall from long-term memory (LTM) was examined in the current study. Participants performed multiple measures of delayed free recall varying in presentation duration and self-reported their strategy usage after each task. Participants also performed multiple measures of WMC. The results suggested that WMC and LTM recall were related, and part of this relation was due to effective strategy use. However, adaptive changes in strategy use and study time allocation were not related to WMC. Examining multiple variables with structural equation modeling suggested that the relation between WMC and LTM recall was due to variation in effective strategy use, search efficiency, and monitoring abilities. Furthermore, all variables were shown to account for individual differences in LTM recall. These results suggest that the relation between WMC and recall from LTM is due to multiple strategic factors operating at both encoding and retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 X Retention interaction, a prominent phenomenon in the literature on the testing effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]