Learners judge massed-presented items as more likely to be recalled than distributed-presented items, although their recall is worse¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1980 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Ratings of recall likelihood were consistently greater for MP than DP items in each study block, though the overall mean difference was not statistically significant. → Zechmeister 1980 q3 i? The MP-DP difference in ratings was in marked opposition to the MP-DP difference in recall; the difference of the differences was statistically significant. → Zechmeister 1980 (2)

Evidence¶

Zechmeister 1980¶

Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(1), 41-44. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03329756

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Analysis of 7-point likelihood-of-recall ratings from the 24-subject free recall experiment. In all four study blocks MP ratings exceeded DP ratings (overall means 4.57 vs. 4.23), but the article reports the overall difference was "not statistically significant" [t(23) = 1.04].

"When mean ratings oflikelihood of recall are examined for MP and DP items, the results shown in Table I reveal that in each of the four study blocks ratings associated with MP items were greater than those for DP items ."

Zechmeister 1980 (2)¶

Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(1), 41-44. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03329756

q3 · i? · causal · r2

A z-score analysis of the same experiment contrasted the MP-DP difference in recall with the MP-DP difference in ratings. The "difference of the differences was statistically significant", showing ratings ran opposite to recall probability (Figure 2).

"Using z scores, the average MP-DP difference in recall performance was con­trasted with that for the rating task, and the resultant difference of the differences was statistically significant [t(23) = 2.64, Sdiff= .39, p <.05] ."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Learners accurately judge that twice-presented items are more likely to be recalled than once-presented items — related
• Across item types, items given high recall-likelihood ratings are recalled with greater probability than items given lower ratings — related
• Distributed presentations are recalled better than massed presentations in free recall (the spacing effect), and requiring likelihood ratings does not alter this effect — related
• Items rated for recall likelihood are recalled at a higher overall level than nonrated items, though extra effective study time confounds this — related