ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Individual differences in learning and memory abilities: The influence of self-efficacy.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are the correlates of mind wandering consistent across younger and older adults?Psychological research · 2026Article
- Memory selectivity in younger and older adults: The role of conative factors in value-directed remembering.Psychology and aging · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study examined whether individual differences in memory self-efficacy (MSE)-one's perception and evaluation of their memory abilities-predict actual learning and memory ability among younger adults. Across three studies, participants completed a delayed free recall task along with measures of working memory, episodic long-term memory (LTM), task-specific motivation, strategy use, and strategy knowledge. Study 1 focused on global MSE (perceived general memory ability across various memory domains), whereas Studies 2 and 3 assessed concurrent MSE (perceived current memory ability for a specific task one is about to complete). Overall, results revealed concurrent MSE, but not global MSE, consistently correlated with delayed free recall accuracy (our index of learning ability). Individuals who believed they were better capable of learning the free recall task tended to perform better on the task, and the strength of this relationship increased with task experience. Both concurrent MSE and overall learning were positively associated with working memory, broad episodic LTM abilities, motivation to perform well, and the use of more effective encoding strategies. Critically, concurrent MSE (assessed pre-task) did not explain unique variance in learning when these additional variables were accounted for. Taken altogether, the present study suggests that among younger adults, efficacy beliefs can reliably predict learning, so long as these beliefs consider contextual features and specific task demands. That said, the efficacy-performance relationship appears to be largely driven by associations with other meaningful "third" variables, particularly broader cognitive abilities like working memory and general episodic LTM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40131640What 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.