Is spacing really the “friend of induction�
Open accessAbstract
Inductive learning takes place when people learn a new concept or category by observing a variety of exemplars. Kornell and Bjork (2008) asked participants to learn new painting styles either by presenting different paintings of the same artist consecutively (massed presentation) or by mixing paintings of different artists (spaced presentation). In their second experiment, Kornell and Bjork (2008) showed with a final style recognition test, that spacing resulted in better inductive learning than massing. Also, by using this style recognition test, they ruled out the possibility that spacing merely resulted in a better memory for the labels of the newly learned painting styles. The findings from Kornell and Bjork's (2008) second experiment are important because they show that the benefit of spaced learning generalizes to complex learning tasks and outcomes, and that it is not confined to rote memory learning. However, the findings from Kornell and Bjork's (2008) second experiment have never been replicated. In the present study we performed an exact and high-powered replication of Kornell and Bjork's (2008) second experiment with a Web-based sample. Such a replication contributes to establish the reliability of the original finding and hence to more conclusive evidence of the spacing effect in inductive learning. The findings from the present replication attempt revealed a medium-sized advantage of spacing over massing in inductive learning, which was comparable to the original effect in the experiment by Kornell and Bjork (2008). Also, the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the effect sizes from both experiments overlapped considerably. Hence, the findings from the present replication experiment and the original experiment clearly reinforce each other.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The findings of Kornell and Bjork (2008, Expt 2) were replicated.
“Replicated findings of Kornell and Bjork (2008, Expt 2).”
From A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Verkoeijen and Bouwmeester (2014)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971 · see citing works
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242 · see citing works
The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x · Cited by 2,037 · see citing works
Evaluating amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research
Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 · Cited by 1,617 · see citing works
Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the “Enemy of Induction”?
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7 · Cited by 264 · cited 7× · see citing works
“…that data from web-based samples, consisting of unsupervised and completely anonymous participants, can yield data comparable to those collected in the psychological laboratory (e.g., Germine et al., 2012; Zwaan and Pecher, 2012; Birnbaum et al., 2013; Crump et al., 2013; Goodman et al., 2013).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLearning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast
Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1801 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
The spacing effect in children’s memory and category induction
Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.013 · Cited by 165 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…literature, several papers report successful conceptual and direct replications of Kornell and Bjork’s (2008) findings from www.frontiersin.org March 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 259 | 1 Experiment 1a,b (e.g., Vlach et al., 2008; Kornell et al., 2010; Kang and Pashler, 2012; Zulkiply et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Cumming G. (2012). Understanding the New Statistics. Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis. New York: Routledge
- De Groot A. D. (2014). The meaning of “significance” for different types of research [translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Denny Borsboom, Josine Verhagen, Rogier Kievit, Marjan Bakker, Angelique Cramer, Dora Matzke, Don Mellenbergh, and Han L. J. van der Maas]. Acta Psychol. 148 188– 194 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.001 24589374 · DOI
- Germine L. Nakayama K. Duchaine B. C. Chabris C. F. Chatterjee G. Wilmer J. B. (2012). Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19 847– 857 10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9 22829343 · DOI · Paper page
- Kornell N. Castel A. D. Eich T. S. Bjork R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychol. Aging 25 498– 503 10.1037/a0017807 20545435 · DOI · Paper page
- Simcox T. Fiez J. A. (2014). Collecting response times using Amazon Mechanical Turk and Adobe Flash. Behav. Res. Methods 46 95– 111 10.3758/s13428-013-0345-y 23670340 PMC5283577 · DOI
- Simonsohn U. (2014). Small Telescopes: Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2259879 (accessed March 19, 2014) 25800521
- Toppino T. C. Gerbier E. (2014). About practice. Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 60 113– 189 10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00004-4 · DOI
- Zulkiply N. McLean J. Burt J. Bath D. (2012). Spacing and induction: application to exemplars presented as auditory and visual text. Learn. Instruct. 22 215– 221 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.002 · DOI
- Zwaan R. A. Pecher D. (2012). Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension: six replication attempts. PLoS ONE 7: e51382 10.1371/journal.pone.0051382 PMC3530580 23300547 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy
Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. (2021) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3266 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Chen, O., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2021) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09613-w · Cited by 62 · see citing works
- Authors
- Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Bouwmeester, S.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2014-03-31
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 259-259
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3978334
- OpenAlex
- W2043407405
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 0.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- spacing effect, inductive learning, category learning, exemplar-based learning, style recognition, replication, online experiments
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