Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40601108›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2025

"I did it before, so I can do it again(?)": Recalling success, expectations of future success and the impact of ease-of-retrieval and attributions.

Adam Abdulla, Ruth Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adam AbdullaRobert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland. adrafab@googlemail.com.
Ruth WoodsRobert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely assumed that recalling past success raises expectations of future success ("expectancy"). However, experimental research investigating that assumption has generated mixed results. The present study examined two (meta)cognitive factors that may play a role during "recall success" interventions: ease-of-retrieval (i.e. the ease/difficulty with which success is recalled) and causal attributions (i.e. the factors to which the success is attributed). Three experiments were conducted with English-speaking adults across the world. After being asked to recall either attraction "success(es)" or attraction "failure(s)," participants reported the extent to which they expected to attract someone in the future ("expectancy"). Results suggest that difficulty in retrieving examples of success and failure to attribute recalled success to stable/general factors have a negative impact on expectancy. Moreover, individuals with low self-perceived mate value are apparently more likely to experience difficulty-in-retrieval and less likely to attribute (attraction) success to stable/general factors. Unless ease-of-retrieval and attributions are addressed, those most in need of an expectancy boost may not benefit from "recall success" interventions.

Indexed as

AchievementAnticipation, PsychologicalMental RecallAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40601108
PMCPMC12222241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.