Studying one's highest-curiosity items produced better recall than studying lowest-curiosity items¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Participants who studied items they had rated as most curious recalled more on a posttest than participants who studied their lowest-curiosity items. → Metcalfe 2023

Evidence¶

Metcalfe 2023¶

Metcalfe, J., Vuorre, M., Towner, E., & Eich, T. S. (2023). Curiosity: The effects of feedback and confidence on the desire to know. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 464-482. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001284

q3 · i? · causal · r2

A learning-test phase embedded in Experiment 2 used only no-feedback items: one group studied their highest-curiosity items and the other their lowest, then both were tested. "the group that studied and was tested on high-curiosity items recalled more on the posttest" (M = .81 vs. M = .63, t[59] = 4.64, p < .001).

"the recall data showed that the group that studied and was tested on high-curiosity items recalled more on the posttest ( M = .81, SE = .02) than did the group that studied their low-curiosity items ( M = .63, SE = .03, t[59] = 4.64, p ,"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Interest — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Curiosity enhances learning, including for incidental material encountered during high-curiosity states — a broader claim this one bears on
• Without feedback, people are more curious about high-confidence errors than about equally high-confidence correct answers, replicated across experiments — related
• 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 — related