A Study On The Hypercorrection Effect And Memory Retention

This study investigated the “knew it all along” explanation of the hypercorrection effect. The hypercorrection effect refers to the finding that when people are given corrective feedback, errors that are committed with high confidence are easier to correct than low-confidence errors. Experiment 1 showed that people were more likely to claim that they knew it all along when they were given the answers to high-confidence errors as compared with low-confidence errors.

Experiments 2 and 3 investigated whether people really did know the correct answers before being told or whether the claim in Experiment 1 was mere hindsight bias. Experiment 2 showed that (a) participants were more likely to choose the correct answer in a 2nd guess multiple-choice test when they had expressed an error with high rather than low confidence and (b) that they were more likely to generate the correct answers to high-confidence as compared with low-confidence errors after being told they were wrong and to try again.

Experiment 3 showed that (c) people were more likely to produce the correct answer when given a 2-letter cue to high- rather than low-confidence errors and that (d) when feedback was scaffolded by presenting the target letters 1 by 1, people needed fewer such letter prompts to reach the correct answers when they had committed high- rather than low-confidence errors. These results converge on the conclusion that when people said that they knew it all along, they were right. This knowledge, no doubt, contributes to why they are able to correct those high-confidence errors so easily. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

I personally believe that Google Scholar is better than PSYCInfo. Google Scholar has much more user-friendly interface, making it easier to navigate and get results. Also, PSYCInfo scholarly search engine is only available if your institution pays for subscription.

The Hypercorrection Effect

The Memory retention has always been quite a challenge not only to the learners but also to the tutors too; who have to subject themselves to intense research for the sake of the students. A robust memory is the divine backbone of continuous learning which will thus lead to increased knowledge. A powerful memory that can retain the entire bulk of information fed into the same-if achievable is the ultimate tool to academic excellence (Santrock, 2013). Means to enhance the same has yet remained elusive both to the common man and among professionals in different fields as well regardless the many attempts to unwind the heavily intertwined part of the human life.

In light of this, err has closely followed man wherever he heads to more than an ever-present shadow but like a dominant Halo engulfing him. Though it is the special exhibition of lack of full memory retention, errors made by man has, on the contrary, paved the way for the correction of the same (Santrock, 2013). The revision adoption to being the right thing and its retention slowly leans on whether the error was made either in high confidence or low confidence. Great confidence response means that the error response was given in a firm conviction as to being the truth. Low confidence response relates to the replies given with little or no conviction as being the right or correct answer (Seligman, 2014).

Correction provided for the two scenarios are not treated the same by the appellant. The high-confidence errors tend to be easily collected than the low-confidence mistakes (Butterfield and Metcalfe, 2001). On the target article summarized in this paper, a closer look was taken in a study on how correction to the error made was adopted.

Extraordinary feedback improves then memory

The term hypercorrection effect was coined by Butterfield and Metcalfe (2001) and was used to refer to the finding that high-confidence errors were easily corrected that their counterpart; the low-confidence mistakes. In the study, Fazio and Marsh aimed at discovering the effects of the feedback if it concurred with the study participant’s belief or not. Two experiments were conducted for this purpose (Neisser, 2014).

Experiment 1 had the participants answer general questions in which they gave their rating on how accurate their answers were. The right answers were then delivered to them as the feedback. The answers were presented in either green or red in each case. After some time, each participant was to identify the color the answer/feedback had been given in. It was noted that where there was a difference between the member’s response and the comments received, the participant would recall the color of the solution easier than he or she would for the comments that corresponded with his or her expectations.

Seventeen of the 63 tested participants were rejected since their answers became subject to chance; explained less than 55% of the source questions asked. The 150 questions picked were varied in complexity in which roughly 40% of the participants were within the correct answer range of 0% to 90%. Color has always been a visual experience that can enrich memory retrieval. In line with this, Dzukifli and Mustafa (2013) noted that means to boost the memory retention capability of the human brain has remained to be among the most provocative yet exhilarating inquest under study thus leading to numerous unequable approaches being brought forward as being partakers in the process of memory retrieval process.

Feedback and Memory Retention

The feedback was always presented under Times New Roman print type and either red font-color, italicized, with a 64-point font size or in a green font-color, underlined and bolded in its font with every other text displayed in the sky-blue 24-point size print type. Each question response was rated on a 7-point scale with its sentence form of feedback following it whether the answer given was correct or not. When analyzed, the results exhibited a significant level of the discrepancy of 0.5.

The participants established a 69% level of accuracy on the color of the feedback when asked of later. The study though primarily designed to check the association between the confidence and the score achieved through the questions presented to the participant, the rational exhibited an additional association amidst the informant memory and trust for both responses answered correctly and those not.

It showed that there existed a positive association between the memory of origin and the incorrect answers while a negative association between the memory of source and the correct answers. Higher confidence was linked with reference memory for the wrong answers. The red font actively came up as more remembered than the green font. Nevertheless, the two font colors failed to be unevenly apportioned throughout the entire reliance levels.

In Experiment 2, the participants had either a man’s voice or a woman’s one used to deliver the correct answer. The subjects under study had then to identify the voice that provided each correct answer. This was a generalized experiment to test for the association amidst response sureness by the participant and the manifestation memory. Of the 72 subjects enrolled in the study, 50 got to the final stage while another six were eliminated since they became subject to chance; less than 55% correct answers. 22 arrived at retest stage while another one failed to since he tampered with his actual data.

The feedback was given either in pink letters, read aloud by a female voice accompanied by a woman’s picture on the computer screen or in blue letters read aloud by a man’s voice and a man’s image on the display of equipment. The response to questions read aloud were followed by their feedbacks as the participants rated their responses. The feedback was after that presented in the neutral font, and the member asked to state if it was a man’s voice or a woman’s voice that had read the feedback. The significant discrepancy was evident at 0.5 level. Values obtained for questions answered were similar to those in Experiment 1.

On subjection to retest, the participants escalated their accuracy level from 43% to 80%. It was discovered that the participants corrected more errors made in high confidence than those made in quiet confidence. Similar to experiment 1, there was a negative association between given correct answer’s trust and memory source and a positive association between given incorrect answer’s confidence and memory source; participant would easily remember the error source had he/she responded with high confidence that in quiet confidence (Heider, 2013).

Surprising feedback improved memory for the two instances as exhibited. It was easier for the participant to remember a color if it was discrepant from his/her expectation in experiment 1. In experiment 2, it was observed that errors made in high self-assurance had higher affinity of correction than the counterpart-those errors made in low self-assurance. Associations between source memory and confidence came to pass just as it was anticipated for the two cases mistakes and correct responses. Therefore, our trust/belief in our errors or otherwise correct statements dictate whether we will learn or not; and adopt that which is right as the right thus having confidence with it.

As Cho and neely (2013) state “conducting experiments to show how each cause of error take part in stirring memory discriminability, an approach such as this should pave the way to thoughtful exploration. Which most probably leave us closer to a conclusion about forgetfulness as well as giving us a hand in clarifying deeper uncertain means that lead us to incorrect responses. On the same issue, Potts and shunks (n.d) note that “errorful generation may play an influential role in potentiating encoding of corrective feedback (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014).

In conclusion, the approach of learning through the errors made has proved to be useful in helping learners acquire the correct information. Nevertheless, let it not be forgotten that for one to be confident of the response he/she is giving, the response must have been acquired from somewhere most likely through studying. The bottom line remains; the errors have to be corrected, but the information that was first acquired had to have originated from studying. If one has studied enough and a mistake arises in the responses he/she deliver, they are easily corrected since they were most likely highly-convinced errors.

References

Butterfield M. (2001). Research Gate; Errors Committed with High Confidence Are Hypercorrected.

Cho, N. (2012). Pubmed Journals; Null Category-Length and Target-Lure Relatedness Effects in Episodic Recognition: A Constraint on Item-Noise Interference Models.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience . Springer Netherlands., pp. 209-226. 

Dzukifli, M. (2013). The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences; The Influence of Colour on Memory Performance: A Review.

Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. . Psychology Press. 

Neisser, U. (2014). Cognitive psychology: Classic edition. Psychology Press. 

Potts, S. (n.d). UCL Discovery; The benefit of generating errors during learning.

Santrock, J. (2013). LIFESPAN DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY. Psychology. 

Seligman, M. E. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction . Springer Netherlands., pp. 279-298.