Yana Weinstein

Can the survival recall advantage be explained by basic memory processes

Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007) demonstrated a striking phenomenon: Words rated for relevance to a grasslands survival scenario were remembered better than identical words encoded under other deep processing conditions. Having replicated this effect using a novel set of words (Experiment 1), we contrasted the schematic processing and evolutionary accounts of the recall advantage (Experiment 2). Inconsistent with the schematic processing account, the grasslands survival scenario produced better recall than did a city survival scenario requiring comparable schematic processing. Recall in the grasslands scenario was unaffected by a self-reference manipulation. The findings are consistent with an evolutionary account that attributes the recall advantage to adaptive memory biases.

A Comparison of Study Strategies for Passages: Rereading, Answering Questions, and Generating Questions

Students are often encouraged to generate and answer their own questions on to-be-remembered material, because this interactive process is thought to enhance memory. But does this strategy actually work? In three experiments, all participants read the same passage, answered questions, and took a test to get accustomed to the materials in a practice phase. They then read three passages and did one of three tasks on each passage: reread the passage, answered questions set by the experimenter, or generated and answered their own questions. Passages were 575-word (Experiments 1 and 2) or 350-word (Experiment 3) texts on topics such as Venice, the Taj Mahal, and the singer Cesaria Evora. After each task, participants predicted their performance on a later test, which followed the same format as the practice phase test (a short-answer test in Experiments 1 and 2, and a free recall test in Experiment 3). In all experiments, best performance was predicted after generating and answering questions. We show, however, that generating questions led to no improvement over answering comprehension questions, but that both of these tasks were more beneficial than rereading. This was the case on an immediate short-answer test (Experiment 1), a short-answer test taken 2 days after study (Experiment 2), and an immediate free recall test (Experiment 3). Generating questions took at least twice as long as answering questions in all three experiments, so although it is a viable alternative to answering questions in the absence of materials, it is less time-efficient.

Testing protects against proactive interference in face–name learning

Learning face–name pairings at a social function becomes increasingly more difficult the more individuals one meets. This phenomenon is attributable to proactive interference—the negative influence of prior learning on subsequent learning. Recent evidence suggests that taking a memory test can alleviate proactive interference in verbal list learning paradigms. We apply this technique to face–name pair learning. Participants studied four lists of 12 face–name pairings and either attempted to name the 12 faces just studied after every list or did not. Recall attempts after every list improved learning of the fourth list by over 100%. Moreover, no reduction in learning of face–name pairings occurred from list 1 to list 4 for participants who attempted to name studied faces between lists. These results suggest that testing oneself on the names of a group of new acquaintances before moving on to the next group is an effective mnemonic technique for social functions.

Borderline but not antisocial personality disorder symptoms are related to self-reported partner aggression in late middle-age.

We examined the relationship between personality pathology and the frequency of self-reported psychological and physical partner aggression in a community sample of 872 adults aged 55-64. Previous research suggests that antisocial and borderline personality disorder (PD) symptoms are associated with partner aggression. Controlling for gender, education, alcohol dependence, and other personality pathology, we found that borderline PD symptoms, which include abandonment fears, unstable identity, and affective instability, were significantly related to the frequency of self-reported aggression toward ones partner. This relationship was observed regardless of whether the participants personality was described by a clinical interviewer, the participant themselves, or an informant chosen by the participant. Further, the relationship between borderline PD symptoms and self-reported partner aggression was moderated by gender such that women were driving the association. Conversely, antisocial PD symptoms, which include deceitfulness, irresponsibility, disregard for rules, and lack of remorse did not significantly account for variance in self-reported partner aggression.

Can mind-wandering be timeless? Atemporal focus and aging in mind-wandering paradigms

Recent research has examined how often mind-wandering occurs about past vs. future events. However, mind-wandering may also be atemporal, although previous investigations of this possibility have not yielded consistent results. Indeed, it is unclear what proportion of mind-wandering is atemporal, and also how an atemporal response option would affect the future-oriented bias often reported during low-demand tasks used to measure mind-wandering. The present study examined self-reported (Experiment 1) and probe-caught (Experiment 2) mind-wandering using the low-demand Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) in younger (18–30) and older (50–73) adults in an experimental paradigm developed to measure mind-wandering using Amazons Mechanical Turk (Mturk). Across self-reported and probe-caught mind-wandering, the atemporal response option was used at least as frequently as past or future mind-wandering options. Although older adults reported far fewer mind-wandering events, they showed a very similar temporal pattern to younger adults. Most importantly, inclusion of the atemporal report option affected performance on the SART and selectively eliminated the prospective bias in self-reported mind-wandering, but not in probe-caught mind-wandering. These results suggest that both young and older participants are often not thinking of past or future events when mind-wandering, but are thinking of events that cannot easily be categorized as either.

Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it

We examined the effect of three variables (test list structure, report option, and framing) on retrospective bias in global evaluations of test performance (postdictions). Participants answered general knowledge questions and estimated correctness of their performance after each block. The ordering of the questions within a block affected bias: Participants believed they had answered more questions correctly when questions were sorted from the easiest to the hardest than when the same questions were randomized or sorted from the hardest to the easiest. This bias was obtained on global postdictions but was not apparent on item-by-item ratings, pointing to a memory-based phenomenon. In addition, forcing participants to produce a response to every question increased performance without affecting evaluations. Finally, framing the evaluation question in terms of the number of questions answered incorrectly (rather than the number correctly answered) did not affect how positively participants evaluated their performance, but did render postdictions less accurate. Our results provide evidence that students’ evaluations of performance after a test are prone to retrospective memory biases.

The Role of Test Expectancy in the Build-Up of Proactive Interference in Long-Term Memory.

We examined the hypothesis that interpolated testing in a multiple list paradigm protects against proactive interference by sustaining test expectancy during encoding. In both experiments, recall on the last of 5 word lists was compared between 4 conditions: a tested group who had taken tests on all previous lists, an untested group who had not taken any tests on previous lists, and 2 other groups (one tested and the other untested) who were warned about the upcoming test prior to study of the fifth list. In both experiments, the untested/warned group performed significantly better than the untested/unwarned group on both correct recall and prior list intrusions but did not achieve the same recall accuracy as tested groups. In Experiment 2, an instruction manipulation check further narrowed the gap between the untested/warned group and the tested groups. In addition, we verified that a reduction in test expectancy indeed occurred in the untested group compared with the tested group by asking participants to indicate how likely they believed they were to receive a test on each studied list. These findings suggest that testing protects against proactive interference largely via attentional processes and/or more effective encoding.

The effect of question order on evaluations of test performance: how does the bias evolve?

Weinstein and Roediger (Memory & Cognition 38:366–376, 2010) found that manipulating the order of questions on a general knowledge quiz resulted in differing evaluations of performance at the end of the quiz: Irrespective of their actual performance, participants were consistently more optimistic about their performance when questions were given in an easy-to-hard order. In the present experiment, the participants were stopped 10 times throughout a 100-item test and asked to evaluate their performance on the last 10 questions they had answered, as well as rating their impressions of the test so far and predicting their final performance. Arranging the questions from the easiest to the hardest produced more optimistic performance evaluations on each block than did an analogous hard–easy question order, even though performance on the two versions did not differ significantly as a function of question order. Furthermore, the ratings of item difficulty on each block of 10 questions were asymmetrical in the two conditions, with a higher sensitivity to increasing as compared to decreasing question difficulty. On the other hand, the item-by-item ratings and predictions remained unaffected by question order. Our findings are best explained by an anchoring interpretation, which suggests that students fail to adjust their evaluations of performance as the difficulty of the questions changes across the test.

Testing improves true recall and protects against the build-up of proactive interference without increasing false recall

Retrieval practice has been shown to protect against the negative effects of previously learned information on the learning of subsequent information, while increasing retention of new information. We report three experiments investigating the impact of retrieval practice on false recall in a multiple list paradigm. In three different experimental designs participants studied blocks of interrelated words that converged on non-presented associates. Participants were tested either after every study block or only after the fifth study block, and both groups received a cumulative test on all five study blocks. Overall the results from all three different experimental designs point to a benefit of testing in increasing long-term veridical recall on the cumulative test. More importantly, this improvement in veridical recall did not come at a cost: False recall on the cumulative test did not increase from retrieval practice.

On the placement of practice questions during study.

Retrieval practice improves retention of information on later tests. A question remains: When should retrieval occur during learning-interspersed throughout study or at the end of each study period? In a lab experiment, an online experiment, and a classroom study, we aimed to determine the ideal placement (interspersed vs. at-the-end) of retrieval practice questions. In the lab experiment, 64 subjects viewed slides about APA style and answered short-answer practice questions about the content or restudied the slides (restudy condition). The practice questions either appeared 1 every 1-2 slides (interspersed condition), or all at the end of the presentation (at-the-end condition). One week later, subjects returned and answered the same questions on a final test. In the online experiment, 175 subjects completed the same procedure. In the classroom study, 62 undergraduate students took quizzes as part of class lectures. Short-answer practice questions appeared either throughout the lectures (interspersed condition) or at the end of the lectures (at-the-end condition). Nineteen days after the last quiz, students were given a surprise final test. Results from the 3 experiments converge in demonstrating an advantage for interspersing practice questions on the initial tests, but an absence of this advantage on the final test.