CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 503Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval.

Carpenter, Shana K.·2009·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
DOI 10.1037/a0017021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The current study explored the elaborative retrieval hypothesis as an explanation for the testing effect: the tendency for a memory test to enhance retention more than restudying. In particular, the retrieval process during testing may activate elaborative information related to the target response, thereby increasing the chances that activation of any of this information will facilitate later retrieval of the target. In a test of this view, participants learned cue-target pairs, which were strongly associated (e.g., Toast: Bread) or weakly associated (e.g., Basket: Bread), through either a cued recall test (Toast: _____) or a restudy opportunity (Toast: Bread). A final test requiring free recall of the targets revealed that tested items were retained better than restudied items, and although strong cues facilitated recall of tested items initially, items recalled from weak cues were retained better over time, such that this advantage was eliminated or reversed at the time of the final test. Restudied items were retained at similar rates on the final test regardless of the strength of the cue-target relationship. These results indicate that the activation of elaborative information-which would occur to a greater extent during testing than restudying--may be one mechanism that underlies the testing effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017021

Cites

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?

  • Carpenter (2009) found that while strongly associated pairs were easier to learn and scored higher on an initial test, weakly associated pairs were better remembered on a final free-recall test due to activation of elaborative information during learning.

    “While strongly associated pairs were easier to learn, scoring higher on an initial test, weakly associated pairs were better remembered on a final free-recall test due to activation of elaborative information during learning (see Figure 2).”

    From Does difficulty moderate learning? A comparative analysis of the desirable difficulties framework and cognitive load theory (2025) · cites this paper as Carpenter (2009)

  • The principle aligns with Elaborative Retrieval Hypothesis, which suggests more effortful retrieval of weakly associated pairs improves long-term memory.

    “This principle aligns with the Elaborative Retrieval Hypothesis, which suggests that more effortful retrieval of weakly associated pairs improves long-term memory (Carpenter, 2009; Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Endres & Renkl, 2015; Rawson et al., 2015).”

    From Does difficulty moderate learning? A comparative analysis of the desirable difficulties framework and cognitive load theory (2025) · cites this paper as Carpenter, 2009

  • The effect sizes giving rise to the elaborative retrieval hypothesis were not very robust.

    “The effect sizes giving rise to this hypothesis were not very robust (see Carpenter 2009, figure 1), and attempts to directly test the hypothesis have not revealed support for the generality of the framework (e.g., Karpicke & Blunt 2011).”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Carpenter 2009

  • Activation of related concepts enhances the likelihood of future recall by adding to the number of possible retrieval routes at later recall.

    “This activation of related concepts enhances the likelihood of future recall by adding to the number of possible retrieval routes at that later recall time (Carpenter 2009).”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Carpenter 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carpenter, S. K.
Affiliations
Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Carpenter, Shana K.
ORCID
Carpenter, Shana K.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2009
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
1563-1569
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
DOI
10.1037/a0017021
OpenAlex
W2094600823
Cited by
503
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
testing effect, cue strength, free recall, restudy, memory retention, cued recall, associative learning
MeSH terms
Attention, Cues, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, Contrast Sensitivity

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