Transitive inference and the testing effect: Retrieval practice impairs transitive inference.

There is substantial interest in the extent to which the testing effect (the finding that retrieval practice enhances memory) extends to more complex forms of learning, especially those entailing greater element interactivity. Transitive inference (TI) requires just such interactivity, in which information must be combined across multiple learning elements or premises to extract an underlying structure. Picklesimer et al. provided preliminary evidence that retrieval practice fails to enhance, and actually disrupts, TI. This study assessed the generality of that result. The current experiments employed a seven- or eight-element TI paradigm in which participants initially learned a set of premise pairs (e.g., A > B, B > C, and C > D) and then engaged in either restudy or retrieval practice of the premise pairs before taking a final test that assessed memory for the original premise pairs and one's ability to make TIs (e.g., to infer that B > D). Experiments 1 and 2 used pictorial materials and simultaneous presentation of premises during learning, a form of presentation that has induced testing effects on other forms of inference. For TI, the results were unchanged from Picklesimer et al.-TI was worse for retrieval practice than restudy. Experiment 3 used verbal materials and likewise found worse TI for retrieval practice. A small-scale meta-analysis combining the current experiments with those of Picklesimer et al. revealed a significant negative testing effect on TI (d = -0.37). Although retrieval practice enhances many aspects of memory, this fundamental aspect of human reasoning may be impaired by retrieval practice.

Attention, the testing effect, and retrieval-induced forgetting: Distraction dissociates the positive and negative effects of retrieval on subsequent memory.

Memory retrieval affects subsequent memory in ways both positive (e.g., the testing effect) and negative (e.g., retrieval-induced forgetting, RIF). The changes to memory that retrieval produces can be thought of as the encoding consequences of retrieval, examined here with respect to attention. In three experiments, participants first studied category-example word pairs, and then practiced retrieval for half the pairs from one-third of the categories (the R + items) and restudied half the pairs from a different third of the categories (the S + items), while the final third of the categories were in the nonpracticed control condition (the Np items). This was followed in turn by a final test over all categories and examples, including the unpracticed examples from the retrieval-practice and restudied categories (the R- and S- items, respectively). The middle phase (of retrieval practice and restudy) was conducted under full attention (FA) or under divided attention (DA) in which participants also performed a distracting secondary task. DA had little effect on final recall in the retrieval practice (R +) condition but significantly reduced final recall of the restudied (S +) items, producing a net increase in the testing effect relative to the FA condition. RIF (measured as the difference between the R- and Np items) was substantial in the FA condition but was eliminated by DA. This occurred because the final recall of R- items significantly increased in the DA compared to FA condition, a highly unusual result in which distraction actually improved an aspect of memory performance. In sum, DA during retrieval practice dissociated the positive and negative effects of retrieval on subsequent memory, increasing the positive effect, embodied by the testing effect, but decreasing the negative effect, embodied by RIF. The theoretical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Levels of retrieval and the testing effect.

Retrieval enhances subsequent memory more than restudy (i.e., the testing effect), demonstrating the encoding (or reencoding) effects of retrieval. It is important to delineate the nature of the encoding effects of retrieval especially in comparison to traditional encoding processes. The current study examined if the level of retrieval, analogous to the level of processing during encoding, has an effect on subsequent memory. In 4 experiments, participants studied short lists of words, each followed by a retrieval or restudy trial. A final free recall test was given at the end of the experiment. The level of retrieval was manipulated by asking participants to retrieve words with a semantic or phonemic cue in the retrieval trial. In order to isolate the effects of retrieval per se, the semantic or phonemic cue was also presented in the restudy trial. Experiment 1 manipulated levels of retrieval (and restudy) between subjects while Experiment 2 manipulated levels within subjects. Experiment 3 sought to enhance the levels effect by adding an overt levels judgment, and Experiment 4 sought to rule out an alternative account of the equality of the testing effects across levels by increasing the list length. In all 4 experiments, a robust testing effect was obtained but it was not moderated by level of retrieval, a result supported by a small-scale meta-analysis, which demonstrated an overall effect of levels and testing condition, but no interaction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Assessing why the testing effect is moderated by experimental design.

The testing effect is 1 of several memory effects moderated by experimental design, such that the effect on free recall is larger in a mixed-list than pure-list design (Mulligan, Susser, & Smith, 2016). The current experiments assess hypotheses regarding why this pattern is found. Three extant accounts of design effects (Nguyen & McDaniel, 2015) are the item-order account, the retrieval-distinctiveness account, and the rehearsal-borrowing account. Three experiments contrasted these accounts, finding support for rehearsal borrowing but no evidence for the rehearsal-distinctiveness or item-order accounts. In addition, each experiment found that the testing effect was larger in the mixed-list than pure-list condition, attesting to the replicability of the design-moderation pattern for the testing effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The testing effect under divided attention: Educational application.

In educational settings, tests are typically used to assess learning. However, research has also shown that tests can enhance retention, often to a greater degree than restudying (i.e., the testing effect). Understanding how these encoding effects of retrieval differ from other forms of encoding is important for applications of the testing effect. One potential difference relates to attention: Divided attention (DA) is well known to disrupt memory encoding but typically has much less impact on memory retrieval. Less is known about the relative attentional demands of the encoding effects of retrieval. Because students are often challenged by distractions while learning, it is important to examine the testing effect, and its relation to attention, with materials and methods more typical of educational settings. Participants studied foreign language word pairs (Experiments 1 and 2) or educational texts (Experiment 3), restudied or retrieved those materials under full attention (FA) or DA, and then took a final test two days later. In each experiment, a testing effect was found under both FA and DA and the level of disruption from DA was similar for both learning conditions. Consequently, the testing effect persists even when retrieval occurs under distraction, and the encoding effects of retrieval and restudy appear to be similarly susceptible to distraction when learning complex educational information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Divided attention and the encoding effects of retrieval.

Retrieving from memory both reveals as well as modifies memory. It is important to understand how these encoding effects of retrieval differ from other forms of encoding. One possible difference relates to attention: divided attention is well known to disrupt memory encoding but typically has much less impact on memory retrieval. However, less is known about the relative attentional demands of the encoding consequences of retrieval. The current experiments examined retrieval-based encoding using free recall, a retrieval task purported to require substantial attentional resources. In three experiments, participants studied common category exemplars (Phase 1), restudied or freely recalled the exemplars (Phase 2), and then took a final free-recall test (Phase 3). Phase 2 occurred under full attention (FA) or divided attention (DA). In all three experiments, the negative effect of DA on final recall was significant in the restudy but not retrieval condition. The pattern persisted with short (Experiment 1) or long study lists (Experiment 2), requiring lesser or greater retrieval effort, and with multiple Phase 2 tests, permitting the development of more elaborate retrieval strategies (Experiment 3). The encoding effects of retrieval appear resilient to distraction, even using a memory task that is more effortful and easily disrupted by DA (i.e., free recall). In addition, these results are inconsistent with elaboration and effort accounts of retrieval-based learning.

The Effect of Retrieval Practice on Transitive Inference.

Compared to restudying, retrieval practice has often been found to enhance memory (the testing effect). However, it has been proposed that materials with high element interactivity may not benefit from retrieval practice. Transitive inference (TI) requires just such interactivity, in which information must be combined across multiple learning elements or premises. The current study employed a 7-element TI paradigm in which participants initially learned a set of premises (e.g., A > B, B > C, C > D, etc.), then engaged in either restudy or retrieval practice with the premises, and then were given a final test that assessed memory for the original premises and one's ability to make transitive inferences about them (e.g., to infer that B > D). Three experiments examined TI on final tests with retention intervals of a few minutes (Experiment 1), 2 days (Experiment 2), or up to a week (Experiment 3). Retrieval practice consistently failed to enhance transitive inference. Furthermore, retrieval practice significantly reduced TI in Experiment 1. Across experiments, TI was numerically worse in the retrieval-practice than restudy condition in 4 of 5 comparisons, and a small-scale meta-analysis revealed a significant negative effect of retrieval practice on TI.

The generation effect and experimental design.

The generation effect is moderated by experimental design, as are a number of other encoding variables, such that the generation effect recall is typically larger in mixed-list than pure-list designs. In typical experiments on design effects, each study list is followed by its own recall test. Rowland, Littrell-Baez, Sensenig, and DeLosh (2014) found that the testing effect was not moderated by experimental design using a procedures in which multiple study lists were followed by a single, end-of-session recall test over all lists. This may indicate an important difference between the testing effect and the set of effects (including generation) moderated by experimental design, or it may signal a more general limitation of design effects. Three experiments used the procedures of Rowland et al. and found that the generation effect was likewise unmoderated by experimental design: The generation effect was robust for pure lists and of equivalent size as with mixed lists. This was found for both a perceptual (letter transposition) and semantic (antonym) generation task. Along with prior research, these results constitute similarities between the generation and testing manipulations with respect to design effects and their limitations. This, in turn, implies a parallel between the mnemonic effects of retrieving information from semantic (generation effect) and episodic (testing effect) memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The testing effect under divided attention.

Memory retrieval often enhances later memory compared with restudying (i.e., the testing effect), indicating that retrieval does not simply reveal but also modifies memory representations. Dividing attention (DA) during encoding greatly disrupts later memory performance while DA during retrieval typically has modest effects-but what of the memory-modifying effects of retrieval? If these effects are similar to study-based encoding, they should be greatly disrupted by DA, a possibility consistent with elaborative and effortful accounts of the testing effect. Alternatively, the mnemonic consequences of retrieval may be largely resilient to distraction, like retrieval itself. In 3 experiments, participants studied word pairs (Phase 1) then engaged in restudy of some pairs and retrieval of others (Phase 2), followed by a final cued-recall test (Phase 3). Phase 2 restudy and retrieval occurred under full attention (FA) or DA. The experiments were designed to induce either material-specific (Experiments 1 and 2) or material-general (Experiment 3) interference, as well as to produce comparable secondary task performance between the restudy and retrieval groups (Experiments 2 and 3). Consistent with prior research, retrieval improved final recall (i.e., the testing effect) whereas DA disrupted final recall. Critically, the 2 factors interacted such that the negative effect of DA on final recall was substantial in the restudy condition but quite modest in the retrieval condition-resulting in a larger testing effect in the DA than FA condition. The encoding effects of retrieval seem resilient to distraction which has implications for theories of the testing effect. (PsycINFO Database Record