Testing effects in mixed- versus pure-list designs.

In the present study, we investigated the role of list composition in the testing effect. Across three experiments, participants learned items through study and initial testing or study and restudy. List composition was manipulated, such that tested and restudied items appeared either intermixed in the same lists (mixed lists) or in separate lists (pure lists). In Experiment 1, half of the participants received mixed lists and half received pure lists. In Experiment 2, all participants were given both mixed and pure lists. Experiment 3 followed Erlebacher's (Psychological Bulletin, 84, 212-219, 1977) method, such that mixed lists, pure tested lists, and pure restudied lists were given to independent groups. Across all three experiments, the final recall results revealed significant testing effects for both mixed and pure lists, with no reliable difference in the magnitude of the testing advantage across list designs. This finding suggests that the testing effect is not subject to a key boundary condition-list design-that impacts other memory phenomena, including the generation effect.

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.

Testing effects for common versus proper names.

The present study examines the testing effect as a function of item meaningfulness. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants studied lists of words that could serve as proper names or occupations (e.g., Mr Baker or baker), with the items given in a name context for one group and an occupation context for a second group. During an intervening phase participants restudied some items and were given a cued recall test (Experiment 1) or a free recall test (Experiment 2) on other items. On a final free recall test memory was better for tested items than studied items in both the name and occupation contexts. Experiment 3 followed the same procedure as Experiment 1, except that participants studied lists of proper names that do not have alternative uses in the English language (e.g., Mr Anderson) or studied concrete nouns (e.g., letter). Tested items were better remembered on a final test than studied items, and there was no interaction with type of study material. These results show that the testing effect extends to proper names, material that is commonly assumed to differ from common names on several dimensions.