Age Differences in the Effects of Experimenter-Instructed Versus Self-Generated Strategy Use

Abstract

Background/Study Context: Interactive imagery is superior to rote repetition as an encoding strategy for paired associate (PA) recall. Younger and older individuals often rate these strategies as equally effective before they gain experience using each strategy. The present study investigated how experimenter-supervised and participant-chosen strategy experience affected younger and older adults’ knowledge about the effectiveness of these two strategies.

Methods: Ninety-nine younger (M = 19.0 years, SD = 1.4) and 90 older adults (M = 70.4 years, SD = 5.2) participated in the experiment. In learning a first PA list participants were either instructed to use imagery or repetition to study specific items (supervised) or could choose their own strategies (unsupervised). All participants were unsupervised on a second PA list to evaluate whether strategy experience affected strategy knowledge, strategy use, and PA recall.

Results: Both instruction groups learned about the superiority of imagery use through task experience, downgrading repetition ratings and upgrading imagery ratings on the second list. However, older adults showed less knowledge updating than did younger adults. Previously supervised younger adults increased their imagery use, improving PA recall; older adults maintained a higher level of repetition use.

Conclusion: Older adults update knowledge of the differential effectiveness of the rote and imagery strategies, but to a lesser degree than younger adults. Older adults manifest an inertial tendency to continue using the repetition strategy even though they have learned that it is inferior to interactive imagery.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant NIA R37 AG13148 awarded to C. Hertzog from the National Institute on Aging, one of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Teri Boutot, Aaron Bozorg, Chanteal Edwards, Ronit Greenberg, Shannon Langston, Colin Malone, Alisha Montiero, and Rory Murray in data collection and data preparation.

Notes

¹The initial design involved comparing knowledge updating for participants in two groups who were supervised in List 1—those given random testing and blocked testing—to those who were unsupervised in both List 1 and List 2. Given our prior research (Hertzog et al., 2008; Hertzog, Price, et al., 2008; Price et al., 2009), we hypothesized that participants exposed to blocked testing in List 1 would experience greater knowledge updating, which might then influence the choice of List 2 study strategies. However, preliminary analysis showed no reliable differences between random and blocked testing on the strategy effectiveness and PA recall measures. Hence participants in the supervised random and supervised blocked were combined into a single supervised group (on List 1) and compared to the unsupervised group for all reported analyses.

Note. Entries are means (standard deviations). Percent Female = the percentage of individuals within each group that were female; Education = mean number of years of education completed; Health = Self-rated health where 1 is “Poor” and 5 is “Excellent”; AVT = Advanced Vocabulary Test score out of 36 possible; Pattern Comparison = mean number correct on Pattern Comparison Test out of 60 possible; Letter Comparison = mean number correct on Letter Comparison Test out of 42 possible. *A reliable difference between age groups, p < .05; **a reliable difference between age groups, p < .001.

²Asking participants to complete the PEP before beginning the task may have affected the frequency with which individuals chose to use certain strategies within the task, but it was critical to collect participants’ preexisting and posttask views about the effectiveness of each strategy in order to assess knowledge updating. Providing participants with descriptions of strategies to facilitate accurate strategy reports is not outside the norm in metacognitive research (e.g., see Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2001).

³Although our prior research (Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2000; Hertzog et al., 2008; Hertzog, Price, et al., 2009; Price et al., 2008) has focused on whether individuals update their knowledge about the differential effectiveness of only two strategies—interactive imagery and rote repetition, we included a description of sentence generation given that this is a normatively effective strategy that individuals in both supervision and age groups might choose to use. Providing a description ensured accurate strategy reports.

⁴The data on predictions, postdictions, and JOLs can be obtained by contacting the first author.

Note. Entries are means (standard errors). Imagery = the mean proportion of items that participants reported studying with interactive imagery; Rote = the mean proportion of items that participants reported studying with rote repetition; Sentence = the mean proportion of items that participants reported studying with sentence generation; Other = the mean proportion of items that participants reported studying with a strategy other than imagery, rote, or sentence generation; None = the mean proportion of items that participants reported studying without producing a strategy or after attempting to produce a strategy, but running out of time before being able to do so.

Note. Entries are means (standard errors). Imagery = the mean proportion of items that participants correctly recalled for items studied with interactive imagery; Rote = the mean proportion of items that participants correctly recalled for items studied with rote repetition; Sentence = the mean proportion of items that participants correctly recalled for items studied sentence generation.

⁵The unusually high List 1 recall for the sentence strategy by older adults in the supervised condition was produced by 7 persons who occasionally used sentences instead of the instructed strategy to good effect. Note that the recall advantage for sentences dissipated on List 2 when more people used the sentence strategy when allowed to do so. The cause of the List 1 result is unclear; among other possibilities, it could reflect selective nonadherence by persons high in memory ability (an adaptive strategy shift) or a benefit of encoding distinctiveness.

⁶We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this alternative hypothesis.