Under sequential presentation with Likert ratings for every word, no memory benefit emerged for items judged likely to be forgotten; negative ratings predicted the poorest recall¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i3 In Experiment 4, words rated -3 (most likely to forget) were recalled worst and below the no-judgment control (d = -0.91), with no positive reactivity for forget items. → Dillon H. Murphy 2023
Evidence¶
Dillon H. Murphy 2023¶
Dillon H. Murphy, Vered Halamish, Matthew G. Rhodes, & Alan D. Castel. (2023). How evaluating memorability can lead to Unintended Consequences. Metacognition and Learning (2023) 18:375–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09332-3
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
Experiment 4 with 161 undergraduates viewing 16 words sequentially for 5 s each; groups made 7-point (n = 49) or 3-point (n = 62) Likert memorability ratings or received an interval (n = 50). Compared to control recall (M = 0.54), "words given a -3 were most poorly recalled" and +3 words better recalled.
"words given a -3 were most poorly recalled (M = 0.28, SD = 0.29), [t(31) = -5.14, p < .001, d = − 0.91] and words given a + 3 were better recalled (M = 0.73, SD = 0.32), [t(31) = 3.37, p = .002, d = 0.60]"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- When the number of remember, forget, and unselected words was equated, words predicted to be forgotten were recalled similarly to unselected words — related
- When every word was judged, words circled as to-be-remembered were recalled better and words underlined as to-be-forgotten worse than a no-instruction control group's recall — related
- Judging words as likely to be forgotten enhanced their recall relative to unselected words under simultaneous presentation with fixed or self-paced study time — reports the opposite
- Relative to random choice, a metacognitive judgment of remembering boosted recall while a judgment of forgetting was associated with a memory cost — related
- Words participants said they would remember were recalled earlier in output than words predicted to be forgotten or words not given a prediction — related
- In self-cued directed forgetting, selected words were better recalled than unselected words regardless of whether they were designated to-be-remembered or to-be-forgotten — reports the opposite
- Merely selecting words by clicking on them, without any memorability instructions, enhanced their recall (a choice effect) — related
- Studying one's highest-curiosity items produced better recall than studying lowest-curiosity items — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
sequential-likert-no-forget-reactivity |
title |
Under sequential presentation with Likert ratings for every word, no memory benefit emerged for items judged likely to be forgotten; negative ratings predicted the poorest recall |
description |
Under sequential presentation with Likert ratings for every word, no memory benefit emerged for items judged likely to be forgotten; negative ratings predicted the poorest recall |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dillon-h-murphy-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.