The perceived importance of words in large font guides learning and selective memory.

People are often presented with large amounts of information to remember, and in many cases, the font size of information may be indicative of its importance (such as headlines or warnings). In the present study, we examined how learners perceive the importance of information in different font sizes and how beliefs about font size influence selective memory. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with to-be-remembered words that were either unrelated or related to a goal (e.g., items for a camping trip) in either small or large font. Participants rated words in large font as more important to remember than words in small font when the words in a list were unrelated but not when the words were schematically related to a goal. In Experiments 2 and 3, we were interested in how learners' belief that font size is indicative of importance translates to their ability to selectively encode and recall valuable information. Specifically, we presented participants with words in various font sizes, and larger fonts either corresponded to greater point values or smaller point values (values counted towards participants' scores if recalled). When larger fonts corresponded with greater point values, participants were better able to selectively remember high-value words relative to low-value words. Thus, when to-be-remembered information varies in value, font size may be less diagnostic of an item's importance (the item's importance drives memory), and when the value of information is consistent with a learner's belief, learners can better engage in selective memory.

An own-race bias in the categorisation and recall of associative information.

ABSTRACTPeople tend to better remember same-race faces relative to other-race faces (an "own-race" bias). We examined whether the own-race bias extends to associative memory, particularly in the identification and recall of information paired with faces. In Experiment 1, we presented white participants with own- and other-race faces which either appeared alone or accompanied by a label indicating whether the face was a "criminal" or a "victim". Results revealed an own-race facial recognition advantage regardless of the presence of associative information. In Experiment 2, we again paired same- and other-race faces with either "criminal" or "victim" labels, but rather than a recognition test, participants were asked to identify whether each face had been presented as a criminal or a victim. White criminals were better categorised than Black criminals, but race did not influence the categorisation of victims. In Experiment 3, white participants were presented with same- and other-race faces and asked to remember where the person was from, their occupation, and a crime they committed. Results revealed a recall advantage for the associative information paired with same-race faces. Collectively, these findings suggest that the own-race bias extends to the categorisation and recall of information in associative memory.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test.

JOL reactivity refers to the finding that making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying material influences later memory for that material. Findings of JOL reactivity have been mixed, with some experiments reporting changes to memory when participants make JOLs and others finding no influence of JOLs. Soderstrom, Clark, Halamish, and Bjork (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553-558, 2015) proposed that JOL reactivity will only occur if the final test is sensitive to the same cues used to inform JOLs. The current study evaluated this account by manipulating the type of final test. In four experiments, participants studied mixed lists of related and unrelated word pairs and either made JOLs or did not make JOLs. Making JOLs generally enhanced memory for related word pairs when a cued-recall test was administered. However, during free recall, JOLs had no influence on memory for target information, likely because cue-target associations (which are used to inform JOLs) are less beneficial in the absence of cues. JOLs improved item recognition memory for words that were studied in related pairs, although the effect was small. Collectively, data from a meta-analysis of these experiments indicate that JOL reactivity depends on the type of final test, with reactivity most likely to occur when the final test is sensitive to the same cues used to inform JOLs. Future work should continue examining different tests and study materials in order to develop a comprehensive theory of JOL reactivity.

Retrieval activates related words more than presentation.

Retrieving information enhances learning more than restudying. One explanation of this effect is based on the role of mediators (e.g., sand-castle can be mediated by beach). Retrieval is hypothesised to activate mediators more than restudying, but existing tests of this hypothesis have had mixed results [Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1547-1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140 ; Lehman, M., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Elaborative retrieval: Do semantic mediators improve memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1573-1591. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000267 ]. The present experiments explored an explanation of the conflicting results, testing whether mediator activation during a retrieval attempt depends on the accessibility of the target information. A target was considered less versus more accessible when fewer versus more cues were given during retrieval practice (Experiments 1 and 2), when the target had been studied once versus three times initially (Experiment 3), or when the target could not be recalled versus could be recalled during retrieval practice (Experiments 1-3). A mini meta-analysis of all three experiments revealed a small effect such that retrieval activated mediators more than presentation, but mediator activation was not reliably related to target accessibility. Thus, retrieval may enhance learning by activating mediators, in part, but these results suggest the role of other processes, too.

Explaining the forgetting bias effect on value judgments: The influence of memory for a past test.

People often feel that information that was forgotten is less important than remembered information. Prior work has shown that participants assign higher importance to remembered information while undervaluing forgotten information. The current study examined two possible accounts of this finding. In three experiments, participants studied lists of words in which each word was randomly assigned a point value denoting the value of remembering the word. Following the presentation of each list participants engaged in a free recall test. After the presentation of all lists participants were shown each of the words they had studied and asked to recall the point value that was initially paired with each word. Experiment 1 tested a fluency-based account by presenting items for value judgments in a low-fluency or high-fluency format. Experiment 2 examined whether value judgments reflect attributions based on the familiarity of an item when value judgments are made. Finally, in Experiment 3, we evaluated whether participants believe that forgotten words are less important by having them judge whether an item was initially recalled or forgotten prior to making a value judgment. Manipulating the fluency of an item presented for judgment had no influence on value ratings (Experiment 1) and familiarity exerted a limited influence on value judgments (Experiment 2). More importantly, participants' value judgments appeared to reflect a theory that remembered information is more valuable than forgotten information (Experiment 3). Overall, the present work suggests that individuals may apply a theory about remembering and forgetting to retrospectively assess the value of information.

The influence of feedback on predictions of future memory performance.

Kornell and Rhodes (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 1-13, 2013) reported that correct answer feedback impairs the accuracy of prospective memory judgments. The current experiments explored the boundaries of this effect. In Experiment 1, participants studied Lithuanian-English word pairs, took an initial test, and were either given correct answer feedback or no feedback at all. They then made a judgment of learning (JOL) regarding the likelihood of correctly recalling the English translation on a later test. Presenting the correct answer as feedback increased average JOLs but impaired relative accuracy on a final test. Therefore, Experiments 2-4 aimed to specifically ameliorate impairments in relative accuracy following feedback. Participants in Experiment 2 were exposed to right/wrong feedback, no feedback, and correct answer feedback while making JOLs. Using such a within-subjects design did not improve relative accuracy following correct answer feedback. Experiment 3 showed that previous exposure to a test-feedback-test cycle did not improve relative accuracy. In Experiment 4, feedback was scaffolded such that the correct answer was progressively revealed. Participants corrected more errors if they could generate the correct response with fewer letter cues. However, relative accuracy did not improve in comparison to the previous experiments. Accordingly, the current experiments suggest that participants may understand that feedback is beneficial, but receiving feedback diminishes prediction accuracy for specific items and participants do not appreciate the magnitude of the benefits of feedback.

Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies.

Students' self-reported study skills and beliefs are often inconsistent with empirically supported (ES) study strategies. However, little is known regarding instructors' beliefs about study skills and if such beliefs differ from those of students. In the current study, we surveyed college students' and instructors' knowledge of study strategies and had both groups evaluate the efficacy of learning strategies described in six learning scenarios. Results from the survey indicated that students frequently reported engaging in methods of studying that were not optimal for learning. Instructors' responses to the survey indicated that they endorsed a number of effective study skills but also held several beliefs inconsistent with research in learning and memory (e.g., learning styles). Further, results from the learning scenarios measure indicated that instructors were moderately more likely than students to endorse ES learning strategies. Collectively, these data suggest that instructors exhibited better knowledge of effective study skills than students, although the difference was small. We discuss several notable findings and argue for the improvement of both students' and instructors' study skill knowledge.

Prior knowledge is more predictive of error correction than subjective confidence.

Previous research has demonstrated that, when given feedback, participants are more likely to correct confidently-held errors, as compared with errors held with lower levels of confidence, a finding termed the hypercorrection effect. Accounts of hypercorrection suggest that confidence modifies attention to feedback; alternatively, hypercorrection may reflect prior domain knowledge, with confidence ratings simply correlated with this prior knowledge. In the present experiments, we attempted to adjudicate among these explanations of the hypercorrection effect. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants answered general knowledge questions, rated their confidence, and received feedback either immediately after rating their confidence or after a delay of several minutes. Although memory for confidence judgments should have been poorer at a delay, the hypercorrection effect was equivalent for both feedback timings. Experiment 2 showed that hypercorrection remained unchanged even when the delay to feedback was increased. In addition, measures of recall for prior confidence judgments showed that memory for confidence was indeed poorer after a delay. Experiment 3 directly compared estimates of domain knowledge with confidence ratings, showing that such prior knowledge was related to error correction, whereas the unique role of confidence was small. Overall, our results suggest that prior knowledge likely plays a primary role in error correction, while confidence may play a small role or merely serve as a proxy for prior knowledge.

Predicting memory benefits in the production effect: the use and misuse of self-generated distinctive cues when making judgments of learning.

The production effect occurs when reading a word aloud leads to better memory for the item, relative to words that are read silently. In the present study, we assessed the degree to which judgments of learning (JOLs) are sensitive to the production effect, to determine whether people are aware of how distinctive cues can enhance memory. If the act of saying a word aloud is used as a cue for later memorability, then JOLs should be sensitive to production. Experiment 1 demonstrated that this was the case, as participants provided higher JOLs for produced items than for those read silently. This pattern of JOLs was also evident when participants silently mouthed words (Exp. 2). In Experiment 3, participants instead made a nonunique response as the production component (saying "yes" instead of the word itself). JOLs were still higher under production, although memory performance did not differ from that in a silent condition. The results suggest that the presence of both specific and nonspecific self-generated cues is used to make metacognitive judgments, likely due to the high accessibility of this information, but that participants are not precisely aware of how distinctiveness enhances encoding and retrieval. Such findings have implications for how distinctiveness is perceived by learners and for what cues would appropriately be incorporated when predicting future memory performance.

Assigned value improves memory of proper names.

Names are more difficult to remember than other personal information such as occupations. The current research examined the influence of assigned point value on memory and metamemory judgements for names and occupations to determine whether incentive can improve recall of proper names. In Experiment 1 participants studied face-name and face-occupation pairs assigned 1 or 10 points, made judgements of learning, and were given a cued recall test. High-value names were recalled more often than low-value names. However, recall of occupations was not influenced by value. In Experiment 2 meaningless nonwords were used for both names and occupations. The name difficulty disappeared, and value influenced recall of both names and occupations. Thus value similarly influenced names and occupations when meaningfulness was held constant. In Experiment 3 participants were required to use overt rote rehearsal for all items. Value did not boost recall of high-value names, suggesting that differential processing could not be implemented to improve memory. Thus incentives may improve memory for proper names by motivating people to engage in selective rehearsal and effortful elaborative processing.

Emotional facial expressions differentially influence predictions and performance for face recognition.

This study examined how participants' predictions of future memory performance are influenced by emotional facial expressions. Participants made judgements of learning (JOLs) predicting the likelihood that they would correctly identify a face displaying a happy, angry, or neutral emotional expression in a future two-alternative forced-choice recognition test of identity (i.e., recognition that a person's face was seen before). JOLs were higher for studied faces with happy and angry emotional expressions than for neutral faces. However, neutral test faces with studied neutral expressions had significantly higher identity recognition rates than neutral test faces studied with happy or angry expressions. Thus, these data are the first to demonstrate that people believe happy and angry emotional expressions will lead to better identity recognition in the future relative to neutral expressions. This occurred despite the fact that neutral expressions elicited better identity recognition than happy and angry expressions. These findings contribute to the growing literature examining the interaction of cognition and emotion.

General knowledge norms: updated and expanded from the Nelson and Narens (1980) norms.

The Nelson and Narens (Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19:338-368, 1980) general knowledge norms have been valuable to researchers in many fields. However, much has changed over the 32 years since the 1980 norms. For example, in 1980, most people knew the answer to the question "What is the name of the Lone Ranger's Indian sidekick?" (answer: Tonto), whereas in 2012, few people know this answer. Thus, we updated the 1980 norms and expanded them by providing new measures. In particular, we report two new metacognitive measures (confidence judgments and peer judgments) and provide a detailed report of commission errors. Each of these measures will be valuable to researchers, and together they are likely to facilitate future research in a number of fields, such as research investigating memory illusions, metamemory processes, and error correction. The presence of substantial generational shifts from 1980 to 2012 necessitates the use of updated norms.

Testing effects for self-generated versus experimenter-provided questions.

Given the finding that retrieval practice improves memory, it is frequently suggested that students test themselves while studying. This study examined whether participants benefit from testing if they create and use their own test questions. In Experiment 1, participants read passages, generated questions about the passages, and then either answered their questions as they created them (the procedure used in previous studies) or after a delay. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants either generated questions and answered them after a delay (i.e., self-testing), answered experimenter-provided questions, or reread the passages before taking a final test administered shortly after learning or following a 2-day delay. The experiments found no benefits of answering one's own questions after a delay. In fact, those who self-tested tended to have worse performance on a final assessment of learning than the other learning conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested that participants' questions often did not target material that was on the later criterion test, which may explain why self-testing was not beneficial. The present study suggests that testing may not benefit learning if students create their own test questions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Study strategies and "study drugs": investigating the relationship between college students' study behaviors and prescription stimulant misuse.

ObjectiveThe current study examined the regular use of study strategies between college students who misused prescription stimulants (N = 36) and college students who did not misuse prescription stimulants (N = 298) in an undergraduate sample. Participants: 334 college students at a large, Midwestern university. Methods: Using logistic regression, we examined whether students who misused prescription stimulants did so to compensate for poor study strategies and/or a lack of study strategies overall. We hypothesized that regularly spacing studying, using more study strategies, and using more effective study strategies would predict lower odds of prescription stimulant misuse among students. In contrast, we hypothesized that using more ineffective study strategies would predict higher odds of prescription stimulant misuse. Results: Results indicated that a greater number of total study strategies and effective study strategies, and higher importance of school predicted higher odds of prescription stimulant misuse. Conclusions: Thus, students may not be misusing prescription stimulants as a substitute for effective studying but, rather, to augment effective study habits.

The effect of perceptual processing fluency and value on metacognition and remembering.

Previous research has indicated that perceptual processing fluency significantly affects metacognitive predictions of performance but not learning outcomes. In the present study, we examined the differential impact of perceptual processing fluency and an item's value on metacognition and recall. We presented participants with words visually and audibly, with each word paired with a point value counting towards participants' scores if recalled. The words were either highly perceptually fluent (large font, loud volume) or less perceptually fluent (small font, low volume). Results revealed that both metacognitive monitoring (JOLs) and recall were sensitive to perceptual processing fluency as well as value, but the magnitude of the effect of value was significantly greater than that of font size. Specifically, high-value words were better remembered than low-value words, regardless of fluency, and participants' judgments mapped onto their selectivity for valuable information. Thus, the current study revealed the differential effects of intrinsic and extrinsic cues on metacognitive monitoring and later remembering such that the cues that can influence monitoring in certain encoding conditions become less impactful when pitted against other intrinsic cues in different encoding conditions.

Detecting a familiar person behind the surgical mask: recognition without identification among masked versus sunglasses-covered faces.

Previous research has shown that even when famous people's identities cannot be discerned from faces that have been filtered with monochromatic noise, these unidentifiable famous faces still tend to receive higher familiarity ratings than similarly filtered non-famous faces. Experiment 1 investigated whether a similar face recognition without identification effect would occur among faces whose identification was hindered through the wearing of a surgical mask. Among a mixture of famous and non-famous faces wearing surgical masks and hoods, participants rated how familiar each person seemed then attempted to identify the person. Though surgical masks significantly impaired identification of the famous faces, unidentified masked famous faces received higher familiarity ratings on average than the non-famous masked faces, suggesting that a sense of familiarity could still occur even when identification was impaired by the mask. Experiment 2 compared faces covered by surgical masks with faces covered by sunglasses. Though sunglasses impaired face identification more than surgical masks, the magnitude of the face recognition without identification effect was the same in both cases. This pattern suggests that holistic face processing is not a requirement for the sense of familiarity with a face, and that different facial feature types can contribute.

The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments.

Judgments about memory are essential in promoting knowledge; they help identify trustworthy memories and predict what information will be retained in the future. In the three experiments reported here, we investigated the mechanisms underlying predictions about memory. In Experiments 1 and 2, single words were presented once or multiple times, in large or small type. There was a double dissociation between actual memory and predicted memory: Type size affected predicted but not actual memory, and future study opportunities affected actual memory but scarcely affected predicted memory. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that beliefs and judgments are largely independent, and neither consistently resembles actual memory. Participants' underestimation of future learning-a stability bias-stemmed from an overreliance on their current memory state in making predictions about future memory states. The overreliance on type size highlights the fundamental importance of the ease-of-processing heuristic: Information that is easy to process is judged to have been learned well.

On the validity of remember-know judgments: evidence from think aloud protocols.

The use of remember-know judgments to assess subjective experience associated with memory retrieval, or as measures of recollection and familiarity processes, has been controversial. In the current study we had participants think aloud during study and provide verbal reports at test for remember-know and confidence (i.e., sure-probably) judgments. Results indicated that the vast majority of remember judgments for studied items were associated with recollection from study (87%), but this correspondence was less likely for high-confidence judgments (72%). Instead, high-confidence judgments were more likely than remember judgments to be associated with incorrect recollection and a lack of recollection. Know judgments were typically associated with a lack of recollection (62%), but still included recollection from the study context (33%). Thus, although remember judgments provided fairly accurate assessments of retrieval including contextual details, know judgments did not provide accurate assessments of retrieval lacking contextual details.

Monitoring memory errors: the influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning.

The current study examined the degree to which predictions of memory performance made immediately or at a delay are sensitive to confidently held memory illusions. Participants studied unrelated pairs of words and made judgements of learning (JOLs) for each item, either immediately or after a delay. Half of the unrelated pairs (deceptive items; e.g., nurse-dollar) had a semantically related competitor (e.g., doctor) that was easily accessible when given a test cue (e.g., nurse-do_ _ _r) and half had no semantically related competitor (control items; e.g., subject-dollar). Following the study phase, participants were administered a cued recall test. Results from Experiment 1 showed that memory performance was less accurate for deceptive compared with control items. In addition, delaying judgement improved the relative accuracy of JOLs for control items but not for deceptive items. Subsequent experiments explored the degree to which the relative accuracy of delayed JOLs for deceptive items improved as a result of a warning to ensure that retrieved memories were accurate (Experiment 2) and corrective feedback regarding the veracity of information retrieved prior to making a JOL (Experiment 3). In all, these data suggest that delayed JOLs may be largely insensitive to memory errors unless participants are provided with feedback regarding memory accuracy.

The influence of FMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making.

In the current study, we report on an experiment examining whether functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) lie detection evidence would influence potential jurors' assessment of guilt in a criminal trial. Potential jurors (N = 330) read a vignette summarizing a trial, with some versions of the vignette including lie detection evidence indicating that the defendant was lying about having committed the crime. Lie detector evidence was based on evidence from the polygraph, fMRI (functional brain imaging), or thermal facial imaging. Results showed that fMRI lie detection evidence led to more guilty verdicts than lie detection evidence based on polygraph evidence, thermal facial imaging, or a control condition that did not include lie detection evidence. However, when the validity of the fMRI lie detection evidence was called into question on cross-examination, guilty verdicts were reduced to the level of the control condition. These results provide important information about the influence of lie detection evidence in legal settings.