The importance of interest for memory performance has been established in previous studies. One way to induce interest in experiments is to use trivia questions. However, previous studies have used only a limited number of trivia questions and these questions differ substantially across studies, making it difficult to ensure the comparability and generalizability of the findings. Most of these studies also have not differentiated between interest in the trivia question itself and interest in the corresponding answer. To address these issues, the current study established a normative database for 244 trivia questions with a large sample ( = 1498) and examined how pre-answer interest (i.e., interest in the question) and post-answer interest (i.e., interest in the answer) relate to learning performance. Participants were presented with trivia questions, asked to provide their best guess for the answer, rated their confidence in the guess, and indicated their interest in learning the true answer. Following the presentation of the answer, participants indicated their post-answer interest. One week later, participants were given a memory test on the questions. A multilevel structural equation model revealed that the positive relationship between pre-answer interest and memory was fully mediated by post-answer interest (i.e., interest in the questions' answer). Confidence had both a direct and a mediated effect (over interest) on memory. These results provide a more fine-grained analysis of how interest can fuel learning.

Distractions and multi-tasking are generally detrimental to learning and memory. Nevertheless, people often study while listening to music, in noisy coffee shops, and while intermittently checking their email. The current experiments examined how distractions and divided attention influence one's ability to selectively remember valuable information. Participants studied lists of words that ranged in value from 1-10 points under full attention, while completing a digit detection task, or while listening to music. Though participants recalled fewer words following digit detection, there were no significant differences between conditions in terms of selectively remembering the most valuable words. Similar results were obtained across a variety of divided attention tasks that stressed attention and working memory to different degrees, suggesting that people may compensate for divided attention costs by selectively attending to the most valuable items and that factors that worsen memory do not, necessarily, impair the ability to selectively remember important information.

People are often exposed to more information than they can actually remember. Despite this frequent form of information overload, little is known about how much information people choose to remember. Using a novel “stop” paradigm, the current research examined whether and how people choose to stop receiving new—possibly overwhelming—information with the intent to maximize memory performance. Participants were presented with a long list of items and were rewarded for the number of correctly remembered words in a following free recall test. Critically, participants in a stop condition were provided with the option to stop the presentation of the remaining words at any time during the list, whereas participants in a control condition were presented with all items. Across five experiments, we found that participants tended to stop the presentation of the items to maximize the number of recalled items, but this decision ironically led to decreased memory performance relative to the control group. This pattern was consistent even after controlling for possible confounding factors (e.g., task demands). The results indicated a general, false belief that we can remember a larger number of items if we restrict the quantity of learning materials. These findings suggest people have an incomplete understanding of how we remember excessive amounts of information.

We examined the impact of repeated testing and repeated studying on long-term learning. In Experiment 1, we replicated Karpicke and Roediger's (2008) influential results showing that once information can be recalled, repeated testing on that information enhances learning, whereas restudying that information does not. We then examined whether the apparent ineffectiveness of restudying might be attributable to the spacing differences between items that were inherent in the between-subjects design employed by Karpicke and Roediger. When we controlled for these spacing differences by manipulating the various learning conditions within subjects in Experiment 2, we found that both repeated testing and restudying improved learning, and that learners' awareness of the relative mnemonic benefits of these strategies was enhanced. These findings contribute to understanding how two important factors in learning-test-induced retrieval processes and spacing-can interact, and they illustrate that such interactions can play out differently in between-subjects and within-subjects experimental designs.

Older adults often experience associative memory impairments but can sometimes remember important information. The current experiments investigate potential age-related similarities and differences associate memory for gains and losses. Younger and older participants were presented with faces and associated dollar amounts, which indicated how much money the person “owed” the participant, and were later given a cued recall test for the dollar amount. Experiment 1 examined face-dollar amount pairs while Experiment 2 included negative dollar amounts to examine both gains and losses. While younger adults recalled more information relative to older adults, both groups were more accurate in recalling the correct value associated with high value faces compared to lower value faces and remembered gist-information about the values. However, negative values (losses) did not have a strong impact on recall among older adults versus younger adults, illustrating important associative memory differences between younger and older adults.