Trying to remember something now typically improves your ability to remember it later. However, after watching a video of a simulated bank robbery, participants who verbally described the robber were 25% worse at identifying the robber in a lineup than were participants who instead listed U.S. states and capitals-this has been termed the "verbal overshadowing" effect (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). More recent studies suggested that this effect might be substantially smaller than first reported. Given uncertainty about the effect size, the influence of this finding in the memory literature, and its practical importance for police procedures, we conducted two collections of preregistered direct replications (RRR1 and RRR2) that differed only in the order of the description task and a filler task. In RRR1, when the description task immediately followed the robbery, participants who provided a description were 4% less likely to select the robber than were those in the control condition. In RRR2, when the description was delayed by 20 min, they were 16% less likely to select the robber. These findings reveal a robust verbal overshadowing effect that is strongly influenced by the relative timing of the tasks. The discussion considers further implications of these replications for our understanding of verbal overshadowing.

When people in laboratory studies sample products in a sequence, they tend to prefer options presented first and last. To what extent do these primacy and recency effects carry over to real-world settings where numerous sources of information determine preferences? To investigate this question, we coded archival data from 136 actual whisky tastings each featuring seven whiskies. We analyzed people’s ratings of whiskies featured at different serial positions in the tastings. We found a recency effect: people gave their highest rating to whiskies in the last position, and voted the last whisky as their favorite more frequently. This recency effect persisted when we controlled for the counter explanation that whiskies with higher alcohol content tended to occupy later serial positions. The recency effect also persisted when we controlled for the age of the whiskies. Taken together, our findings suggest that the order of presentation matters in real-world settings, closely resembling what happens in laboratory settings with longer sequences of options.

<p>We know that students are more optimistic about their performance after they take a test that progresses from the easiest to hardest questions than after taking one that progresses in the opposite order¹. In fact, these “Easy-Hard” students are more optimistic than “Hard-Easy” students even when the two groups perform equally. The literature explains this question order bias as a result of students’ failing to sufficiently adjust, in the face of new information, their extreme initial impressions about the test. In the first two of six studies, we investigated the possibility that a biased memory for individual questions on the test is an alternative mechanism driving the question order bias. The pattern of results was inconsistent with this mechanism, but fit with the established impression-based mechanism. In the next four studies, we addressed the role that the number of test questions plays in determining the size of the question order bias, discovered that warning students is only a partially effective method for reducing the bias, and established a more precise estimate of the bias’ size. Taken together, this work provides evidence that the question order bias is a robust phenomenon, likely driven by insufficient adjustment from extreme initial impressions.  ¹ Although the research in this thesis is my own, I conducted it in a lab and supervised a team comprised of research assistants and honours students. I also received advice and direction from my supervisors. Therefore, I often use the word “we” in this thesis to reflect these facts.</p>

<p>We know that students are more optimistic about their performance after they take a test that progresses from the easiest to hardest questions than after taking one that progresses in the opposite order¹. In fact, these “Easy-Hard” students are more optimistic than “Hard-Easy” students even when the two groups perform equally. The literature explains this question order bias as a result of students’ failing to sufficiently adjust, in the face of new information, their extreme initial impressions about the test. In the first two of six studies, we investigated the possibility that a biased memory for individual questions on the test is an alternative mechanism driving the question order bias. The pattern of results was inconsistent with this mechanism, but fit with the established impression-based mechanism. In the next four studies, we addressed the role that the number of test questions plays in determining the size of the question order bias, discovered that warning students is only a partially effective method for reducing the bias, and established a more precise estimate of the bias’ size. Taken together, this work provides evidence that the question order bias is a robust phenomenon, likely driven by insufficient adjustment from extreme initial impressions.  ¹ Although the research in this thesis is my own, I conducted it in a lab and supervised a team comprised of research assistants and honours students. I also received advice and direction from my supervisors. Therefore, I often use the word “we” in this thesis to reflect these facts.</p>