We often need to update what we have learned, building on older information by adding newer information. When updating, is it better to review the older information by retrieving it (testing) or restudying it? In other words, do tests result in enhanced updating or impaired updating compared to restudying? Past research has obtained divergent conclusions to this question. The present study used a paired associates updating paradigm in which participants studied a cue and the older response (A-B). They later reviewed the older response by restudying (A-B) or testing (A-?; A-B) and immediately after learned a newer response (-D) that updated the original pair into a trio (A-B-D). In eight experiments, we demonstrated that different patterns of pre-existing semantic associations between the cue, older response, and newer response resulted in all possible outcomes: test enhanced new learning, test impaired new learning, and no difference. The results were most consistent with a family of updating theories that propose the metacognitive processes that occur after reviewing determine whether testing enhances, impairs, or has no impact on new learning. The results suggest that theories should consider the impact of the newer response in updating in addition to performance on the initial test.
Keywords: Testing; test enhanced new learning; test impaired new learning; updating; word association.