Memory & Cognition

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 186–197 | Cite as

Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm



Retrieval enhanced suggestibility (RES) is the finding that the misinformation effect is exacerbated when a test precedes misleading postevent information (Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich Psychological Science 20: 66–73, 2009). In the present study, we tested three hypotheses relevant to RES. First, we examined whether retrieval of critical details was necessary for the RES effect. Second, we examined whether initial testing influenced the allocation of attention to critical details during postevent information processing. Finally, we examined whether RES resulted in impaired access to the originally learned information. We compared three groups of participants in three experiments: an identical-test group, a related-test group, and a standard misinformation group. Both testing groups were tested on the original event before the introduction of misinformation; however, the identical-test group took the same test before and after the misinformation, whereas the related-test group took different tests before and after misinformation. We found that testing before misleading postevent information affected attention allocation to details in the postevent narrative. Furthermore, the RES effect did not accompany reduced accessibility to the original information, as measured by a modified–modified free recall test. These data have implications for how testing may potentiate new learning.


Eyewitness memory Misinformation effect New learning Retrieval Testing effect 


Author note

We thank Jason C. K. Chan and John B. Bulevich for comments on earlier drafts. We also thank research assistants Shelci Bowman, William Carroll, Paul Cernasov, Caroline Chen, Darius Izadpanah, and Alex Schmider for data collection and scoring.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Domains of recollection. Psychological Review, 89, 708–729. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.89.6.708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, J. M., & Underwood, B. J. (1959). “Fate” of first-list associations in transfer theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 97–105. doi: 10.1037/h0047507 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: An interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 123–144). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bulevich, J. B., & Thomas, A. K. (2012). Retrieval effort improves memory and metamemory in the face of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1563–1569. doi: 10.1037/a0017021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 279–283.Google Scholar
  9. Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633–642. doi: 10.3758/BF03202713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, J. C. K., & Langley, M. (2011). Paradoxical effects of testing: Retrieval enhances both accurate recall and suggestibility in eyewitnesses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 248–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, J. C. K., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2011). The dark side of testing memory: Repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 418–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553–571. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility: The reversed testing effect. Psychological Science, 20, 66–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, J. C. K., Wilford, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2012). Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 298–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting against misleading post-event information with a Self-Administered Interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (1999). Attempts to reduce the incidence of false recall with source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1195–1209.Google Scholar
  18. Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., Hardt, O., & Nadel, L. (2007). Reconsolidation of episodic memories: A subtle reminder triggers integration of new information. Learning and Memory, 14, 47–53. doi: 10.1101/lm.365707 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang, S. H. K., Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Carpenter, S. K., & Mozer, M. C. (2011). Does incorrect guessing impair fact learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. doi: 10.1126/science.1199327 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609–639. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.609 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lane, S. M., Mather, M., Villa, D., & Morita, S. (2001). How events are reviewed matters: Effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility. Memory & Cognition, 29, 940–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning and Memory, 12, 361–366. doi: 10.1101/lm.94705 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., & Hicks, J. L. (1996). The post-information effect and reductions in retroactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1296–1303.Google Scholar
  29. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 159–188. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.114.2.159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDaniel, M. A., Kowitz, M. D., & Dunay, P. K. (1989). Altering memory through recall: The effects of cue-guided retrieval processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Memon, A., Zaragoza, M., Clifford, B. R., & Kidd, L. (2010). Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 105–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why is test–restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 737–746. doi: 10.1037/a0026166 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.2.93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reynolds, R. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1982). Influence of questions on the allocation of attention during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 623–632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salthouse, T. A. (1993). Influence of working memory on adult age differences in matrix reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 171–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders, J., & MacLeod, M. D. (2002). New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 127–142. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.127 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1392–1399. doi: 10.1037/a0013082 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Chan, J. C. K. (2010). Testing promotes eyewitness accuracy with a warning: Implications for retrieval enhanced suggestibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading post-event information. Memory & Cognition, 14, 329–338. doi: 10.3758/BF03202511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tulving, E., & Watkins, M. J. (1974). On negative transfer: Effects of testing one list on the recall of another. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 181–193. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80043-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2011). The interim test effect: Testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1140–1147. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0140-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations