ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Trade-offs between remembering and online evaluation in retrospective evaluation.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper examines the trade-off between remembering and online evaluation in retrospective judgments. In two experiments, we compared conditions where participants performed only one task (evaluation or recall) versus both tasks, with task expectancy manipulated through pre-cueing or post-cueing. Participants (N=139 and N=262) viewed sequences of numbers representing monetary values and were asked to either recall the numbers or evaluate the sequence through willingness-to-pay judgments. Results showed that when both tasks were potential (Experiment 1) or actual (Experiment 2) candidates to be cued, one or the other task showed a decrement in performance, indicative of some dual-task cost. Strikingly, simulations revealed that participants would have performed better had they focused solely on memory encoding during presentation rather than attempting dual-task processing. These findings suggest that people do not optimally allocate cognitive resources between competing processes during retrospective evaluation, and may attempt to deploy multiple specialized strategies even where a memory-based strategy would be effective overall.
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.