The negative testing effect and multifactor account.

Peterson, Daniel J.; Mulligan, Neil W.

doi:10.1037/a0031337

Cited by 45 publications

(191 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the results show that the negative testing effect reported by Peterson and Mulligan (2013) generalizes, extending to another memory test sensitive to prior interitem relational processing. Second, the conditionalized analysis also replicates the results of Peterson and Mulligan (2013), demonstrating that the negative testing effect occurs for items successfully retrieved during Phase 2 as well as for the broader set of all tested items (the unconditionalized analysis).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Consequently, one important issue is to determine whether the negative testing effect can be accounted solely by retrieval differences (i.e., the availability of category cues during the final recall test) or whether one needs to propose intertarget encoding differences as well. A reanalysis of data from Peterson and Mulligan (2013), reported below, provides prelimi nary evidence on this issue, and Experiment 1 of the present article provides a more direct test.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This analysis generated two predictions: (a) reduced target recall in the retrieval compared with the restudy condition (i.e., a negative testing effect) and (b) less category-based clustering of the targets in the retrieval than restudy condition. Peterson and Mulligan (2013) found precisely this: The retrieval condition produced lower recall on the final free-recall test than did the restudy group-a negative testing effect, and the measure of clustering on the free-recall test (assessed with the standard measure, the adjust-ratio of clustering, ARC, score) was lower in 1 In typical generation manipulations, generation of the target is guided by item or cue-target information and not by interitem relational informa tion (which is typically not a useful basis for generating targets). These typical conditions are those for which the item-specific-relational account predicts disrupted interitem processing.…”

Section: The Negative Testing Effectmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Negative and positive testing effects in terms of item-specific and relational information.

Mulligan

Peterson

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though retrieving information typically results in improved memory on a subsequent test (the testing effect). Peterson and Mulligan (2013) outlined the conditions under which retrieval practice results in poorer recall relative to restudy, a phenomenon dubbed the negative testing effect. The item-specificrelational account proposes that this occurs when retrieval disrupts interitem relational encoding despite enhancing item-specific information. Four experiments examined the negative testing effect, showing the following: (a) The basic phenomenon is replicable in free recall; (b) it extends to category-cued recall; (c) it converts to a positive testing effect when the final test is recognition, a test heavily reliant on item-specific information; (d) the negative testing effect in recall, robust in a pure list design, reverses to a positive testing effect in a mixed-list design; and (_e) more generally, the present testing manipulation interacts with experimental design, such that an initially negative effect becomes positive or an initially positive effect becomes larger as the design changes from pure-list to mixed-list. The breadth of results fits well within the item-specific-relational framework and provides evidence against 2 alternative accounts. Finally, this research indicates that the testing effect shares important similarities with the generation effect and other similar memory phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: The Negative Testing Effectmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negative and positive testing effects in terms of item-specific and relational information.

Mulligan

Peterson

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although similarities exist between these two forms of retrieval (cf. [47]), it would be informative to take into account the nature of the associations that are activated during practice-tests in future studies. The testing effect has been found with many different materials (Box 1) but all testing-effect fMRI studies so far used visual word-pairs.…”

Section: Future Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurocognitive mechanisms of the “testing effect”: A review

Broek

Takashima

Wiklund-Hörnqvist

et al. 2016

Trends in Neuroscience and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tMemory retrieval is an active process that can alter the content and accessibility of stored memories. Of potential relevance for educational practice are findings that memory retrieval fosters better retention than mere studying. This so-called testing effect has been demonstrated for different materials and populations, but there is limited consensus on the neurocognitive mechanisms involved. In this review, we relate cognitive accounts of the testing effect to findings from recent brain-imaging studies to identify neurocognitive factors that could explain the testing effect. Results indicate that testing facilitates later performance through several processes, including effects on semantic memory representations, the selective strengthening of relevant associations and inhibition of irrelevant associations, as well as potentiation of subsequent learning.

show abstract

“…There is a relatively straightforward extension of the model to the case of cued recall on the initial test and free recall on the final test (e.g., Carpenter, 2009;Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006;Carpenter, Pashler, et al, 2006;Fritz et al, 2007;Halamish & Bjork, 2011;Karpicke & Zaromb, 2010;Pan, Rubin, & Rickard, 2015;Peterson & Mulligan, 2013;Rowland, 2014;Rowland & DeLosh, 2015). As reviewed by Hintzman (2016), sequential presentation of paired associate items (as in cued recall training in the TE paradigm) does not appear to yield measurable interitem associations, provided that task instructions or other task properties do not lead subjects to believe that interitem associations are important to learn.…”

Section: Free Recall On the Final Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dual memory theory of the testing effect

Rickard

Pan

2017

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new theoretical framework for the testing effect-the finding that retrieval practice is usually more effective for learning than are other strategies-is proposed, the empirically supported tenet of which is that separate memories form as a consequence of study and test events. A simplest case quantitative model is derived from that framework for the case of cued recall. With no free parameters, that model predicts both proportion correct in the test condition and the magnitude of the testing effect across 10 experiments conducted in our laboratory, experiments that varied with respect to material type, retention interval, and performance in the restudy condition. The model also provides the first quantitative accounts of (a) the testing effect as a function of performance in the restudy condition, (b) the upper bound magnitude of the testing effect, (c) the effect of correct answer feedback, (d) the testing effect as a function of retention interval for the cases of feedback and no feedback, and (e) the effect of prior learning method on subsequent learning through testing. Candidate accounts of several other core phenomena in the literature, including test-potentiated learning, recognition versus cued recall training effects, cued versus free recall final test effects, and other select transfer effects, are also proposed. Future prospects and relations to other theories are discussed.

show abstract

The negative testing effect and multifactor account.

Cited by 45 publications

References 17 publications

Negative and positive testing effects in terms of item-specific and relational information.

Negative and positive testing effects in terms of item-specific and relational information.

Neurocognitive mechanisms of the “testing effect”: A review

A dual memory theory of the testing effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About