Items rated for recall likelihood are recalled at a higher overall level than nonrated items, though extra effective study time confounds this¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Overall recall of rated items was significantly higher than that of nonrated items, but the ratings occurred during additional study time, so effective study time was longer for rated items. → Zechmeister 1980

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 the free recall experiment comparing rated vs. nonrated items. Rated items were recalled better overall, but the article cautions rated items had additional potential study time during the 6-sec rating interval, so the difference is confounded.

"The overall level of recall of rated items was, however, significantly higher than that of nonrated items [F(l ,23) =6.0, MSe =.82, p < .05] . It must be remembered that potential study time for rated items exceeded that for nonrated items"

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