Why does guessing incorrectly enhance, rather than impair, retention?

Abstract

The finding that trying, and failing, to predict the upcoming to-be-remembered response to a given cue can enhance later recall of that response, relative to studying the intact cue–response pair, is surprising, especially given that the standard paradigm (e.g., Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009) involves allocating what would otherwise be study time to generating an error. In three experiments, we sought to eliminate two potential heuristics that participants might use to aid recall of correct responses on the final test and to explore the effects of interference both at an immediate and at a delayed test. In Experiment 1, by intermixing strongly associated to-be-remembered pairs with weakly associated pairs, we eliminated a potential heuristic participants can use on the final test in the standard version of the paradigm—namely, that really strong associates are incorrect responses. In Experiment 2, by rigging half of the participants’ responses to be correct, we eliminated another potential heuristic—namely, that one’s initial guesses are virtually always wrong. In Experiment 3, we examined whether participants’ ability to remember—and discriminate between—their incorrect guesses and correct responses would be lost after a 48-h delay, when source memory should be reduced. Across all experiments, we continued to find a robust benefit of trying to guess to-be-learned responses, even when incorrect, versus studying intact cue–response pairs. The benefits of making incorrect guesses are not an artifact of the paradigm, nor are they limited to short retention intervals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Briggs, G. E. (1954). Acquisition, extinction, and recovery functions in retroactive inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 285–293.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Butler, A. C., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high-confidence errors return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1238–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Goode, M. K., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). When additional multiple-choice lures aid versus hinder later memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 941–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cunningham, D. J., & Anderson, R. C. (1968). Effect of practice time within prompting and confirmation presentation procedures on paired associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Elley, W. B. (1966-66). The role of errors in learning with feedback. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966-66, 35–36, 296–300.

  7. Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40, 505–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When and why a failed test potentiates the effectiveness of subsequent study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 290–296. doi:10.1037/a0028468

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Huelser, B. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2012). Making related errors facilitates learning, but learners do not know it. Memory & Cognition, 40, 514–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaess, W., & Zeaman, D. (1960). Positive and negative knowledge of results on a pressey-type punchboard. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Knight, J. B., Ball, B. H., Brewer, G. A., DeWitt, M. R., & Marsh, R. L. (2012). Testing unsuccessfully: A specification of the underlying mechanisms supporting its influence on retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Koriat, A., Fiedler, K., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Inflation of conditional prediction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 429–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kornell, N. (2014). Attempting to answer a meaningful question enhances subsequent learning even when feedback is delayed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 106–114.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 219–224.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989–998.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., III, Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 194–199. doi:10.3758/bf03194051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McGillivray, S., & Castel, A. D. (2010). Memory for age-face associations: The role of generation and schematic support. Psychology and Aging, 25, 822–832.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). The benefit of generating errors during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 644–667. doi:10.1037/a0033194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 333, 335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 243–257.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines: From the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self-instruction. Science, 128, 969–977. doi:10.1126/science.128.3330.969

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Slamecka, N. J., & Fevreiski, J. (1983). The generation effect when generation fails. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 592–604.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Terrace, H. S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without “errors”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 1–27.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Vaughn, K., & Rawson, K. (2012). When is guessing incorrectly better than studying for enhancing memory? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1–7. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0276-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author note

This research was supported by Grant No. 29192G from the McDonnell Foundation. We thank the members of Minifog and CogFog for their contributions to this article. Portions of this research were presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronica X. Yan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, V.X., Yu, Y., Garcia, M.A. et al. Why does guessing incorrectly enhance, rather than impair, retention?. Mem Cogn 42, 1373–1383 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0454-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Testing
  • Forgetting
  • Generation
  • Errors