Surprising feedback improves later memory
Open accessAbstract
The hypercorrection effect is the finding that high-confidence errors are more likely to be corrected after feedback than are low-confidence errors (Butterfield & Metcalfe, 2001). In two experiments, we explored the idea that the hypercorrection effect results from increased attention to surprising feedback. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to remember the appearance of the presented feedback when the feedback did not match expectations. In Experiment 2, we replicated this effect using more distinctive sources and also demonstrated the hypercorrection effect in this modified paradigm. Overall, participants better remembered both the surface features and the content of surprising feedback.
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?
Greater attention is given to feedback that does not match expectations.
“There is also evidence that greater attention is given to feedback that does not match expectations (e.g., Butterfield & Metcalfe, 2001;Fazio & Marsh, 2009)”
From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as Fazio & Marsh, 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 124
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Butterfield B 2003 The hypercorrection effect and its neural correlates Dissertation Abstracts International 66 05
- Authors
- Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fazio, L. K.
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2009-02-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-92
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- PMC
- PMC4036076
- OpenAlex
- W2110827749
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007376)
- 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
- surprise, feedback, memory, confidence, attention, error correction, source memory, recognition memory, metacognition
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Color Perception, Culture, Humans, Reading, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Set, Psychology, Speech Perception, Voice Quality, Recognition, Psychology, Feedback, Psychological
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
