Cited by 551Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory?

Pyc, Mary A., Rawson, Katherine A.·2009·Journal of Memory and Language

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tests that are harder and require more retrieval effort produce greater benefits for later memory.

    “Moreover, it has been found that the harder the test, and the greater the effort required for retrieval, the greater the benefit to subsequent memory (e.g., Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006;Pyc & Rawson, 2009).”

    From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as Pyc & Rawson, 2009

  • Several studies have directly tested the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis, each finding evidence in support.

    “There are several studies that have directly tested the REH, each finding evidence in support of this notion (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Pyc & Rawson, 2009).”
  • Studies related to REH typically involve simple, low-element-interactivity material, such as paired associates and word lists.

    “Studies related to REH typically involve simple, low-element-interactivity material, such as paired associates (Pyc & Rawson, 2009; Vaughn et al., 2013) and word lists (Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Lehman et al., 2014).”
  • The level of retrieval effort cannot be defined independent of its eventual effect on retrievability.

    “A major challenge, though, is that the level of retrieval effort cannot be defined independent of its eventual effect on retrievability (cf.Pyc & Rawson 2009); likewise, it is not clear ahead of time which difficulties are desirable and which are undesirable and whether the answer to that question differs from person to person.”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Pyc & Rawson 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A.
Affiliations
Kent State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pyc, Mary A.
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
437-447
ISSN
0749-596X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168292591
Cited by
551
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Kent State University
  • Institute of Education Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
retrieval practice, desirable difficulties, memory consolidation, interstimulus interval, test performance, metacognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review