Merely selecting words by clicking on them, without any memorability instructions, enhanced their recall (a choice effect)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Words that were circled or underlined were better recalled than words not clicked on, with no memorability instructions given (ηp² = 0.72). → 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 · r1

Experiment 3 with 102 undergraduates asked only to circle two words and underline two words with no criteria given; study time fixed (n = 47) or self-paced (n = 55). Clicked words were recalled far better, a large effect of ηp² = 0.72, quoted as "[F(1, 99) = 252.66, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.72]".

"words that were either circled or underlined ( M = 0.78, SD = 0.20) were better recalled than words that were not clicked on ( M = 0.42, SD = 0.24), [F(1, 99) = 252.66, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.72]"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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 — related
• Learner highlighting of text gives a small memory benefit but no reliable comprehension benefit, and evidence on other forms of annotation is not yet recorded here — related
• Relative to random choice, a metacognitive judgment of remembering boosted recall while a judgment of forgetting was associated with a memory cost — 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
• When the number of remember, forget, and unselected words was equated, words predicted to be forgotten were recalled similarly to unselected words — 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