The role of goals and outcomes in young children's memory for actions

Enhancing memory using enactment: does meaning matter in action production?

ABSTRACTEnactment is an encoding strategy in which performing an action related to a target item enhances memory for that word, relative to verbal encoding. Precisely how this motor activity aids recall is unclear. We examined whether the action created during encoding needed to be semantically relevant to the to-be-remembered word, to enhance memory. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to either (a) enact, (b) perform unrelated motoric gestures, or (c) read forty-five action verbs. On a subsequent free-recall test, memory for enacted words was significantly higher relative to words read, or encoded with unrelated gestures. In Experiment 2, to reduce the ambiguity associated with initiating an unrelated gesture, participants were instructed to write target words in the air. Results were similar to Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we replicated the results of Experiment 2 using video conferencing to record the onset time of action initiation for enacted, unrelated gesture, and read trials. Results showed that planning of meaningful actions may also contribute to the memory performance as evidenced by a longer onset time to initiate an action on enactment relative to gesturing and reading trials. These findings suggest that planning and executing meaningful actions drive the enactment benefit.

Children's ability to edit their memories when learning about the environment from credible and noncredible websites

One of the many sources of information easily available to children is the internet and the millions of websites providing accurate, and sometimes inaccurate, information. In the current investigation, we examined children’s ability to use credibility information about websites when learning about environmental sustainability. In two studies, children studied two different websites and were tested on what they had learned a week later using a multiple-choice test containing both website items and new distracters. Children were given either no information about the websites or were told that one of the websites (the noncredible website) contained errors and they should not use any information from that website to answer the test. In both studies, children aged 7- to 9-years reported information from the noncredible website even when instructed not to, whereas the 10- to 12-year-olds used the credibility warning to ‘edit out’ information that they had learned from the noncredible website. In Study 2, there was an indication that the older children spontaneously assessed the credibility of the website if credibility markers were made explicit. A plausible explanation is that, although children remembered information from the websites, they needed explicit instruction to bind the website content with the relevant source (the individual websites). The results have implications for children’s learning in an open-access, digital age where information comes from many sources, credible and noncredible. Education in credibility evaluation may enable children to be critical consumers of information thereby resisting misinformation provided through public sources.