Are test-expectancy effects better explained by changes in encoding strategies or differential test experience?

Prior research has investigated whether learners spontaneously adapt their encoding strategies in anticipation of particular test formats (i.e., the encoding-strategy adaptation hypothesis; Finley & Benjamin, 2012). However, the strongest evidence supporting this hypothesis is confounded with test experience (as argued by Cho & Neely, 2017). When learners gain equal experience with each test format, do they adapt their encoding strategy use? Across 3 experiments, participants studied lists of cue-target word pairs and after each list completed either a cued-recall test (recall targets given cues) or a free-recall test (recall targets only). Participants received equal experience with each test format. On a final critical test, participants either received a test in a format they expected or one that violated their expectations. On this critical test, participants who received a test they expected outperformed those who did not, and this was true for both cued and free recall. Also, a manipulation of cue-target associative strength had a greater effect on cued-recall tests than free-recall tests (Experiment 1), whereas a manipulation of target-target associative strength had a greater influence on free-recall tests than cued-recall tests (Experiments 2 and 3). These findings, along with divergent patterns of self-reported strategy use for the 2 anticipated test formats, support the encoding-strategy adaptation hypothesis. In particular, learners tend to use more cue-target associative strategies when expecting a cued-recall test, and more target-focused strategies when expecting a free-recall test. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).