ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2025
Individual differences diminish the pretest effect under productive memory conditions.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of awareness in self-derivation of new knowledge through memory integration.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Practice testing enhances learning but not attitude change from persuasive texts.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Individual differences diminish the pretest effect under productive memory conditions.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pretesting, or asking a test question prior to the onset of learning, is a well-established means of enhancing learning. Research on pretesting has focused primarily on direct factual learning outcomes. Yet building a coherent knowledge base also depends on productive memory processes that permit going beyond the information directly given. In the specific productive process of self-derivation through memory integration, individual differences are prominent; verbal comprehension is a consistent predictor. In the current work, we integrated these research trends by testing the extent to which pretesting enhances learning through productive memory processes and the role played by individual differences in verbal comprehension. Across four within-subjects experiments, we assessed the pretest effect after accounting for variability associated with verbal comprehension. In Experiments 1-3, we assessed the productive memory process of self-derivation through memory integration. Adults were more successful on pretest trials compared to control (i.e., no pretest) trials, but this effect was no longer significant after controlling for verbal comprehension. This pattern emerged when we used stem-fact pretests (Experiment 1) and integration-fact pretests (Experiment 2) to probe self-derivation across single-sentence stimuli and replicated when we used stimuli more akin to everyday learning materials (i.e., text passages and photographs; Experiment 3). In Experiment 4, we shifted the test target from productive processes to fact recall and found the pretest effect held even after controlling for verbal comprehension. This research bridges the pretest and productive process literature to provide novel insight into ways of maximizing learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.