Task accuracy is far higher with reminders than internal memory and is unaffected by reminder framing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Forced-external accuracy substantially exceeded forced-internal accuracy in Experiment 2 (ηp2 = 0.77), while framing had a negligible main effect (ηp2 < 0.01). → Lea Fröscher 2022

Evidence¶

Lea Fröscher 2022¶

Lea Fröscher, Ann‑Kathrin Friedrich, Max Berentelg, Curtis Widmer, Sam J. Gilbert and Frank Papenmeier. (2022). Framing cognitive offloading in terms of gains or losses: achieving a more optimal use of reminders. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00416-3

q3 · i3 · causal · r3

Experiment 2 repeated-measures ANOVA on accuracy data: main effect of condition (forced-internal vs forced-external) significant, F(1, 299) = 991.36, p < 0.001, with printed effect size ηp2 = 0.77 (a large effect); main effect of framing (ηp2 < 0.01) and interaction non-significant. Participants remembered "almost two-thirds" internally and "nearly all" with reminders.

"We again obtained a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 299) = 991.36, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.77, but no significant main effect of framing, F(1, 299) = 0.33, p = 0.565, ηp2 < 0.01, and a non-significant interaction of framing and condition"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• External reminders dramatically reduce forgetting of delayed intentions — related
• Metacognitive confidence triggers intention offloading independently of objective memory need — related
• Participants still offload more than optimal under loss framing — related
• Framing adds an additive predictive value to the reminder bias beyond participants' internal metacognitive bias — related