TY - JOUR
T1 - The role of test expectancy in the build-up of proactive interference in long-term memory
AU - Weinstein, Yana
AU - Gilmore, Adrian W.
AU - Szpunar, Karl K.
AU - McDermott, Kathleen B.
PY - 2014/7
Y1 - 2014/7
N2 - We examined the hypothesis that interpolated testing in a multiple list paradigm protects against proactive interference by sustaining test expectancy during encoding. In both experiments, recall on the last of 5 word lists was compared between 4 conditions: a tested group who had taken tests on all previous lists, an untested group who had not taken any tests on previous lists, and 2 other groups (one tested and the other untested) who were warned about the upcoming test prior to study of the fifth list. In both experiments, the untested/warned group performed significantly better than the untested/unwarned group on both correct recall and prior list intrusions but did not achieve the same recall accuracy as tested groups. In Experiment 2, an instruction manipulation check further narrowed the gap between the untested/warned group and the tested groups. In addition, we verified that a reduction in test expectancy indeed occurred in the untested group compared with the tested group by asking participants to indicate how likely they believed they were to receive a test on each studied list. These findings suggest that testing protects against proactive interference largely via attentional processes and/or more effective encoding.
AB - We examined the hypothesis that interpolated testing in a multiple list paradigm protects against proactive interference by sustaining test expectancy during encoding. In both experiments, recall on the last of 5 word lists was compared between 4 conditions: a tested group who had taken tests on all previous lists, an untested group who had not taken any tests on previous lists, and 2 other groups (one tested and the other untested) who were warned about the upcoming test prior to study of the fifth list. In both experiments, the untested/warned group performed significantly better than the untested/unwarned group on both correct recall and prior list intrusions but did not achieve the same recall accuracy as tested groups. In Experiment 2, an instruction manipulation check further narrowed the gap between the untested/warned group and the tested groups. In addition, we verified that a reduction in test expectancy indeed occurred in the untested group compared with the tested group by asking participants to indicate how likely they believed they were to receive a test on each studied list. These findings suggest that testing protects against proactive interference largely via attentional processes and/or more effective encoding.
KW - Encoding
KW - Interpolated testing
KW - Proactive interference
KW - Test expectancy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902963403&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/a0036164
DO - 10.1037/a0036164
M3 - Article
C2 - 24707786
AN - SCOPUS:84902963403
SN - 0278-7393
VL - 40
SP - 1039
EP - 1048
JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition
JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition
IS - 4
ER -