ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Errorful learning of trivia questions and answers: The role of study time.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Errorful learning-asking questions and forcing responding even before the correct answers are presented for study-has recently been proposed as a way of maximizing the effectiveness of study. However, much support for the superiority of errorful learning over standard learning via reading comes from studies employing pairs of words as study materials, which remain of little educational relevance. Studies using materials affording richer semantic processing, such as trivia questions and their answers, have shown benefits of errorful learning only when the errorful learning condition is granted additional time for formulating guesses. In the present study, we systematically examined the role of timing when comparing errorful learning and reading strategies applied to study of trivia questions and their answers. In Experiments 1 and 2, we obtained evidence for the superiority of errorful learning over reading when additional time was given to formulate guesses, but this superiority was abolished when the overall time to study was equated between the two learning strategies. We further examined the role of answer familiarity in Experiment 3, showing that incorrect guessing produced no benefit for learning regardless of whether the to-be-learned concepts were familiar or not. In Experiments 4 and 5, no benefits of errorful learning emerged when participants were required to guess responses to two different questions that shared a common set of possible answers. We conclude that the benefits of errorful learning for trivia questions emerge only when guessing gives more time to process target questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.