Pre-testing effects are target-specific and are not driven by a generalised state of curiosity.

Guessing an answer to an unfamiliar question prior to seeing the answer leads to better memory than studying alone (the pre-testing effect), which some theories attribute to increased curiosity. A similar effect occurs in general knowledge learning: people are more likely to recall information that they were initially curious to learn. Gruber and Ranganath [(2019). How curiosity enhances hippocampus-dependent memory: The prediction, appraisal, curiosity, and exploration (PACE) framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(12), 1014-1025] argued that unanswered questions can cause a state of curiosity during which encoding is enhanced for the missing answer, but also for incidental information presented at the time. If pre-testing similarly induces curiosity, then it too should produce better memory for incidental information. We tested this idea in three experiments that varied the order, nature and timing of the incidental material presented within a pre-testing context. All three experiments demonstrated a reliable pre-testing effect for the targets, but no benefit for the incidental material presented before the target. This pattern suggests that the pre-testing effect is highly specific and is not consistent with a generalised state of curiosity.

Remembering Social Events: A Construal Level Approach.

Social events are rich in information, yet research into how people remember such events has typically been limited to considering one aspect (e.g., faces, behaviors) at a time. Based on an internal meta-analysis of a program work encompassing 15 laboratory, field, and on-line experiments involving 1,230 participants, we found that construal level influences both the ability to recognize people involved in the event (d = 0.30) and the way the social aspects of the event are described (average d = 0.48). In contrast, memory for background objects/scenes that were present during the event was unaffected by construal level. We discuss these findings in terms of their implications for both event memory (and situations where different aspects of the same event are remembered) and for construal level (and the question of how and when construal is likely to affect memory).

The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect.

Relative to studying alone, guessing the meanings of unknown words can improve later recognition of their meanings, even if those guesses were incorrect - the pretesting effect (PTE). The error-correction hypothesis suggests that incorrect guesses produce error signals that promote memory for the meanings when they are revealed. The current research sought to test the error-correction explanation of the PTE. In three experiments, participants studied unfamiliar Finnish-English word pairs by either studying each complete pair or by guessing the English translation before its presentation. In the latter case, the participants also guessed which of two categories the word belonged to. Hence, guesses from the correct category were semantically closer to the true translation than guesses from the incorrect category. In Experiment 1, guessing increased subsequent recognition of the English translations, especially for translations that were presented on trials in which the participants' guesses were from the correct category. Experiment 2 replicated these target recognition effects while also demonstrating that they do not extend to associative recognition performance. Experiment 3 again replicated the target recognition pattern, while also examining participants' metacognitive recognition judgments. Participants correctly judged that their memory would be better after small than after large errors, but incorrectly believed that making any errors would be detrimental, relative to study-only. Overall, the data are inconsistent with the error-correction hypothesis; small, within-category errors produced better recognition than large, cross-category errors. Alternative theories, based on elaborative encoding and motivated learning, are considered.

Pretesting boosts item but not source memory.

Two experiments examined the effect of pretesting on target recognition and source memory. In an initial encoding phase, participants attempted to learn the common English definitions of rare English words. For each rare word, the participants either guessed the definition of the rare English word before it was revealed (Pretest condition) or just studied the complete word pair without first guessing the definition (Read-only condition). To manipulate source information, the targets were either presented in different colours (Experiment 1) or lists (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the participants correctly recognised more targets from Pretest trials than Read-only trials, but showed no difference in source memory. Pretesting, therefore, appears to improve target recognition memory, but not memory for contextual information. The results are discussed in relation to semantic and episodic theories of the pretesting effect.

"I can't skip it": does free report improve accuracy in false memories?

Strategic monitoring of recognition memory by children and adults was examined using a semantic DRM procedure. Children (7- and 10-year-olds) and adults (overall N = 393) studied lists of semantically related words either incidentally or intentionally and were tested with old items, new items and critical lures to judge as old or new. Participants either made a decision about every item they saw (forced report), or they had the opportunity to withhold answers they were uncertain about (free report). Children were less likely to withhold an answer than adults. However, 7-year-olds were more able to resist false memories when given the opportunity to withhold an answer compared to 10-year-olds or adults. In contrast, adults were unable to improve false memory accuracy. These data suggest that once semantically induced false memories have been encoded they are amenable to strategic monitoring at retrieval in children but not adults.

Pretesting boosts recognition, but not cued recall, of targets from unrelated word pairs.

Attempting to retrieve the answer to a question on an initial test can improve memory for that answer on a subsequent test, relative to an equivalent study period. Such retrieval attempts can be beneficial even when they are unsuccessful, although this benefit is usually only seen with related word pairs. Three experiments examined the effects of pretesting for both related (e.g., pond-frog) and unrelated (e.g., pillow-leaf) word pairs on cued recall and target recognition. Pretesting improved subsequent cued recall performance for related but not for unrelated word pairs, relative to simply studying the word pairs. Tests of target recognition, by contrast, revealed benefits of pretesting for memory of targets from both related and unrelated word pairs. These data challenge popular theories that suggest that the pretesting effect depends on partial activation of the target during the pretesting phase.

Selective effects of errorful generation on recognition memory: the role of motivation and surprise.

The current research examined the effects of errorful generation on memory, focusing particularly on the roles of motivation and surprise. In two experiments, participants were first presented with photographs of faces and were asked to associate four facts with each photograph. On Generate trials, the participants guessed two of the facts (Guess targets) before those correct facts, and another two correct facts (Study targets), were revealed. On the remaining Read trials, all four facts were presented without a guessing stage. In Experiment 1, participants also ranked their motivation to know the answers before they were revealed, or their surprise on learning the true answers. Guess targets were subsequently better recognised than the concurrently presented, non-guessed Study targets. Guess targets were also better recognised than Read targets, and recognition of Study and Read targets did not differ. Errorful generation also increased self-reported motivation, but not surprise. Experiment 2 showed that the results of Experiment 1 can outlive a 20-minute delay, and that they generalise to a more challenging recognition test. Together, the results suggest that errorful generation improves memory specifically for the guessed fact, and this may be linked to an increase in motivation to learn that fact.

Testing the Motor Simulation Account of Source Errors for Actions in Recall.

Observing someone else perform an action can lead to false memories of self-performance - the observation inflation effect. One explanation is that action simulation via mirror neuron activation during action observation is responsible for observation inflation by enriching memories of observed actions with motor representations. In three experiments we investigated this account of source memory failures, using a novel paradigm that minimized influences of verbalization and prior object knowledge. Participants worked in pairs to take turns acting out geometric shapes and letters. The next day, participants recalled either actions they had performed or those they had observed. Experiment 1 showed that participants falsely retrieved observed actions as self-performed, but also retrieved self-performed actions as observed. Experiment 2 showed that preventing participants from encoding observed actions motorically by taxing their motor system with a concurrent motor task did not lead to the predicted decrease in false claims of self-performance. Indeed, Experiment 3 showed that this was the case even if participants were asked to carefully monitor their recall. Because our data provide no evidence for a motor activation account, we also discussed our results in light of a source monitoring account.

Evidence of a metacognitive benefit to memory?

Studies of the memory-control framework have contrasted free-report and forced-report recall, with little regard to the order of these two tests. The present experiment sought to demonstrate that test order is crucial, and that this suggests a potential role for metacognitive monitoring on memory retrieval. Participants undertook tests of episodic and semantic memory in both free- and forced-report format, in one of the two potential response orders. This showed that free-report performance was more accurate if conducted prior to forced-report, rather than after it, with no cost to memory quantity. Additionally, there was a trend towards higher forced-report performance if it was preceded by an initial free-report test, a pattern revealed by a meta-analysis to be consistent with previous studies in the literature. These findings suggest a reciprocal relationship between metacognitive monitoring and early retrieval processes in memory that results in higher memory performance when monitoring is encouraged.

Social influences on unconscious plagiarism and anti-plagiarism.

People are more likely to unconsciously plagiarise ideas from a same-sex partner than a different-sex partner, and more likely to unconsciously plagiarise if recalling alone rather than in the presence of their partner [Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Calvini, G. (1999). Contexts of cryptomnesia: May the source be with you. Social Cognition, 17, 273-297. doi: 10.1521/soco.1999.17.3.273 ]. Two sets of experiments explore these phenomena, using extensions of the standard unconscious plagiarism paradigm. In Experiment 1A participants worked together in same- or different-sex dyads before trying to recall their own ideas or their partner's ideas. More source errors were evident for same-sex dyads (Experiment 1A), but this effect was absent when participants recalled from both sources simultaneously (Experiment 1B). In Experiment 2A, participants recalled ideas from a single source either alone or in the presence of the partner, using an extended-recall task. Partner presence did not affect the availability of ideas, but did reduce the propensity to report them as task compliant, relative to a partner-present condition. Simultaneous recall from both sources removed this social effect (Experiment 2B). Thus social influences on unconscious plagiarism are apparent, but are influenced by the salience of the alternate source at retrieval.

The hows and whys of face memory: level of construal influences the recognition of human faces.

Three experiments investigated the influence of level of construal (i.e., the interpretation of actions in terms of their meaning or their details) on different stages of face memory. We employed a standard multiple-face recognition paradigm, with half of the faces inverted at test. Construal level was manipulated prior to recognition (Experiment 1), during study (Experiment 2) or both (Experiment 3). The results support a general advantage for high-level construal over low-level construal at both study and at test, and suggest that matching processing style between study and recognition has no advantage. These experiments provide additional evidence in support of a link between semantic processing (i.e., construal) and visual (i.e., face) processing. We conclude with a discussion of implications for current theories relating to both construal and face processing.

The hows and whys of face processing: Level of construal influences the holistic processing of human faces.

Face recognition and identification are optimized by holistic processing. Various visual-spatial manipulations appear to have transfer effects on holistic face processing. The present experiment tests the effects of a semantic manipulation--of construal level--on holistic processing as measured by composite congruency effects. Participants completed two blocks of trials. The first served as a baseline, whereas the second included a manipulation of construal level. High-level construal resulted in stronger congruency effects, indicative of greater holistic processing (relative to baseline and to low-level construal). These results have implications for conceptualizations of both construal level and holistic processing.

Process dissociation of familiarity and recollection in children: response deadline affects recollection but not familiarity.

According to dual-process theories, recollection (slow and associated with contextual details) and familiarity (fast and automatic) are two independent processes underlying recognition memory. An adapted version of the process dissociation paradigm was used to measure recognition memory in 5-, 7-, and 11-year-olds and adults. In Experiment 1, it was found that 5-year-olds already recollect details of items (i.e., number). Recollection increased particularly between 5 and 7 years. Familiarity differed between 5 years and adulthood. In Experiment 2, under limited response time during retrieval, recollection was eliminated in 5-year-olds and reduced across all ages, whereas familiarity was left unaffected. Together, these findings are consistent with dual-process theories of recognition memory and provide support for two processes underlying recognition memory from a developmental perspective.