STOP SHOUTING AT ME: The Influence of Case and Self-Referencing on Explicit and Implicit Memory

Ilenikhena, George O.; Narmawala, Haajra; Sklenar, Allison M.; McCurdy, Matthew P.; Gutchess, Angela H.; Leshikar, Eric D.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685756

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it may be that our finding of a prosocial advantage in memory where participant remember specific details (impressions; behaviors) associated with targets, may be adaptive and help guide future goal-directed behaviors in social contexts. Examining conditions under which memory might be improved is an important pursuit (Bjork & Benjamin, 2011;Burden et al, 2021;Frankenstein et al, 2022;Ilenikhena et al, 2021;Leach et al, 2019;, 2014Leshikar et al, , 2017Matzen et al, 2015), and the results of the current investigation contribute to that empirical goal.…”

Section: In Addition To Finding Improved Impression Memory For Targetsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Prior work in the memory domain has shown that certain social information is especially well‐remembered such as information for social targets who cheat. Less work, however, has investigated the extent people remember information for social targets who engage in prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping) in social interactions. The current investigation examines whether there is a memory advantage for social targets who perform prosocial behaviors. Methods Across two experiments, participants formed impressions of social targets engaging in prosocial and non‐prosocial behaviors. Participants were then tested on their memory for the impression as well as the specific behavior each social target performed. Results Results of Experiment 1 showed that memory for impressions was better for social targets engaging in prosocial compared to non‐prosocial behaviors. Results of Experiment 2 showed marginally better behavior memory for targets performing prosocial compared to non‐prosocial behaviors. Conclusion Overall, results of both experiments provide converging evidence of a prosocial advantage in memory, which suggests that people are attuned to prosocial behaviors exhibited by others in the social domain.

show abstract

Section: In Addition To Finding Improved Impression Memory For Targetsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to improved item memory for lower versus higher constraint conditions, we also found that item memory was better for items processed in both testing conditions (lower, higher constraint) compared to controls (restudy, study‐only), which is consistent with a vast literature showing that testing (or retrieval practice) improves item memory (Adesope et al., 2017 ; Glover, 1989 ; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ; Rowland, 2014 ). Finding ways to improve memory is an important scientific endeavor (Bjork & Bjork, 2011 ; Burden et al., 2021 ; Frankenstein et al., 2020 , 2022 ; Ilenikhena et al., 2021 ; Kadwe et al., 2022 ; Leshikar, In Press ; Leshikar et al., 2019 , 2017 ; Leshikar, Park, et al., 2015 ; Matzen et al., 2015 ; Patel et al., 2022 ; Sklenar et al., 2022 , 2021 , 2023 ; Udeogu et al., 2022 ; Urban Levy et al., 2023 ; Villasenor et al., 2021 ), and the results of this investigation add to that cause.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower constraint testing enhances the testing effect for some contextual details but not others

Giannakopoulos,

McCurdy,

Sklenar

et al. 2024

Brain and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRetrieval practice has been shown to be an effective means of learning new information, a memory phenomenon known as the testing effect or the retrieval practice effect. Some work suggests that the magnitude of the testing effect can be enhanced when the test used for retrieval practice uses fewer cues to retrieve previously studied information. It is unclear, however, whether such testing benefits extend to peripheral contextual details associated with studied materials (e.g., location where stimuli appear, font color in which items are presented, etc.). In this experiment, we examine both item memory (i.e., memory for the studied items) and context memory under conditions where the intervening test offers fewer cues (i.e., lower constraint) compared to more cues (higher constraint) to better understand item and context memory testing effects.MethodsParticipants first studied word pairs presented in one of eight locations as well as in either red or green font color. Then, in the re‐exposure phase, participants processed materials in two types of intervening tests (lower constraint and a higher constraint test) as well as in a restudy condition, before a final memory test.ResultsFor item memory, results showed that memory was better in the lower constraint testing condition compared to both the higher constraint testing condition as well as the restudy (control) condition. For context memory, results indicated improved memory for location context under lower constraint testing compared to both higher constraint testing and restudy conditions. There was no difference in memory, however, for color context across all conditions.ConclusionOverall, these findings suggest that providing fewer cues to aid retrieval in the intervening test can induce better memory for both items as well as some contextual details.

show abstract

“…Though cognitive mechanisms have been proposed to explain the retrieval practice effect, we were interested in the extent self-efficacy, a social-cognitive factor, could contribute to this memory benefit. It is well known constructs related to one’s sense of self have a strong effect on memory (Brown et al, 1986 ; Gutchess et al, 2007 ; Ilenikhena et al, 2021 ; Leshikar et al, 2015b ; Leshikar & Duarte, 2012 , 2014 ; Rogers et al, 1977 ; Symons & Johnson, 1997 ; Wong et al, 2017 ), and past work has demonstrated a relationship between self-efficacy and memory in both laboratory and academic contexts (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011 ; Huang & Mayer, 2018 ; Multon et al, 1991 ; Robbins et al, 2004 ). The work we present in this investigation provides additional evidence that changes in self-efficacy is related to memory performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the relationship between retrieval practice, self-efficacy, and memory

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieval practice effect refers to improved memory on a final test for information retrieved one or more times. Although past theoretical work identifies cognitive mechanisms to explain retrieval practice benefits, it is possible that improving self-efficacy during learning may also contribute to better memory, in line with limited past work showing a relationship between self-efficacy and memory. Across two experiments, we examine the potential relationship between retrieval practice, self-efficacy, and memory. In Experiment 1 , we examined the extent change in self-efficacy accounted for improved memory on a final test after retrieval practice compared with restudy. In Experiment 2 , we gave participants (false) feedback that was either negative (i.e., you performed worse than others), neutral (i.e., you performed the same as others), or positive (i.e., you performed better than others) to more directly assess the effects of self-efficacy on memory under retrieval practice conditions. Results of Experiment 1 showed a significant retrieval practice effect, with memory on the final test being better after retrieval practice compared with restudy. Self-efficacy did not significantly mediate the retrieval practice effect. Results of Experiment 2, however, showed that decreases in self-efficacy due to (false) negative feedback resulted in worse memory performance compared with neutral feedback. Such findings may suggest that change in self-efficacy after retrieval practice attempts, particularly negative feedback, affects memory at final test. Overall, these findings suggest a relationship between retrieval practice, self-efficacy, and memory, and imply that interventions that influence self-efficacy may be a plausible mechanism to modulate memory under some conditions.

show abstract

STOP SHOUTING AT ME: The Influence of Case and Self-Referencing on Explicit and Implicit Memory

Cited by 12 publications

References 90 publications

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

Lower constraint testing enhances the testing effect for some contextual details but not others

Exploring the relationship between retrieval practice, self-efficacy, and memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About