C8 Distracting extras

survived narrowedone dot per attack, oldest first

1. #1 narrowed 8 October 2026 · Maloy et al. 2019 · target: kill-condition

   In a randomised trial inside a real university course (N = 754), adding short interesting-but-irrelevant video clips to the pre-class lecture videos did not lower scores on problem-solving (apply-level) quizzes, the midterm or the final exam, and a laboratory experiment that removed known confounds (extras matched for length and reading level) found no consistent harm to transfer, so C8's unconditioned claim that such extras lower transfer is not consistent beyond the average of controlled experiments.

   Strongest reading and verdict reasoning

   Steelmans to: C8 dies on "a replication or meta-analysis in which seductive details do not lower transfer (they match or raise it) in the same instruction time"; Maloy et al. is the largest randomised test in an authentic course, with core content held identical and apply-level quizzes plus midterm and final exams, and finds no difference; Tislar & Steelman, built to fix the confounds critics raised (longer texts, unmatched reading level, no learning objectives), find no main effect on transfer; with Rey 2012 counting only 11 of 39 experiments as clearly supporting the effect, the claim as stated (extras lower transfer) overstates what is consistently found.

   Why: Nightly-attacks 2026-10-08 Europe/Stockholm. Both full texts read (open access: CBE—Life Sciences Education 18(3), ar42; Brain and Behavior 11, e2322; not stored). Maloy et al. 2019: two large genetics course sections randomised between subjects, 389 control / 365 clips; about two ~1-minute clips per session for 4 weeks (17 min 13 s in total; control 7 h 41 min, clips group 7 h 58 min of video); pre-class quiz mean 1.67 vs 1.68 of 2 (92 % of items apply-level); midterm 74.66 vs 75.76 (p = .389); final exam 164.38 vs 165.22 (p = .716); course percentage 84.75 vs 85.05 (p = .730); no difference by prior knowledge in scores. Tislar & Steelman 2021: 3 × 2 between subjects (no / low-interest / high-interest details × learning objectives or not), 110 analysed; transfer: no main effect of details (F(2,103) = 2.11, p = .13), interaction with objectives (p = .04); with objectives, no details 4.11 vs high-interest 3.36 of 5 (p = .04, d = 0.72); without objectives no difference (p = .21). Kill withheld: (1) meta-analytic averages remain negative (Rey 2012, transfer d ≈ 0.48; Sundararajan & Adesope 2020, g ≈ −0.33 over 68 effect sizes, as recorded in the project's Rey 2012 source folder; Noetel et al. 2022 report g = 0.33 for removing such details); (2) in Maloy the clips were flagged as not for the test and added about 17 minutes (~4 %) of video, so the same-time condition held for the core content only, and quizzes were online with retakes; (3) Tislar & Steelman did find a harm when objectives were given; (4) both used university students. Not a restatement: C8's Bounds named moderators of the size of the effect (Rey 2012) but not a classroom null or a confound-controlled null; first ledger entry on C8. Claim and Bounds rewritten same turn; brief and the practical rule rewritten.

2. #2 survived 10 October 2026 · Cheng, Wu, Wang & Wang 2026 · target: kill-condition

   The newest and largest meta-analysis of seductive details, which corrects for the dependence between effect sizes that inflated earlier meta-analyses, finds the harm much smaller than before and no significant harm at all in paper-and-pencil materials or among secondary-school pupils, so a meta-analysis no longer shows that interesting but irrelevant extras lower transfer and C8's kill-condition is met.

   Strongest reading and verdict reasoning

   Steelmans to: C8 dies on "a replication or meta-analysis in which seductive details do not lower transfer (they match or raise it) in the same instruction time"; this three-level meta-analysis (50 studies, 177 effect sizes, 20,683 participants, published to May 2025) nearly doubles the evidence since Sundararajan & Adesope 2020 and halves the overall effect (g = −0.16 against −0.33 and Rey 2012's transfer d ≈ 0.48); if transfer alone came out near zero, the average claim would fall.

   Why: Nightly-attacks 2026-10-10 Europe/Stockholm. Full text read (published version, Educational Psychology Review 38, article 28, published 5 March 2026; author-shared copy on ResearchGate; publisher page closed; not stored). Table 3: overall g = −0.16 (SE 0.03, 95 % CI −0.22 to −0.10, p < .001), I² = 57.8 %. Table 4: transfer g = −0.12 (SE 0.05, 95 % CI −0.22 to −0.03, p < .05; 25 studies, 68 effect sizes); recall −0.17; comprehension −0.19. Kill fails: transfer is still lowered, significantly, on average. Context, on all outcomes combined, not transfer alone (Table 5): paper-and-pencil settings g = 0.00 (CI −0.16 to 0.17; 9 studies) versus technology-based −0.19 (41 studies), moderator F = 3.74, p = .033; secondary-school pupils g = −0.05 (CI −0.19 to 0.10; 9 studies) versus college −0.18, but grade level was not a significant moderator (F = 2.02, p = .11); long interventions (74 minutes or more) −0.12, not significant. These subgroup results are between-study comparisons on combined outcomes and do not show that transfer is unharmed in paper materials or for school pupils; not applied as a narrowing (open-questions list full). Publication-bias checks clean (Egger p = .98; trim-and-fill imputed none). Not a duplicate: Rey 2012 and Sundararajan & Adesope 2020 were the earlier averages; Maloy et al. 2019 and Tislar & Steelman 2021 (2026-10-08) were single-study nulls behind the consistency bound. Claim field unchanged; Bounds record the smaller size and the subgroups. Status remains weakened.

3. #3 narrowed 13 October 2026 · Wesenberg et al. 2026 · target: claim-text

   Within one randomised experiment, the same interesting but irrelevant paragraphs that lowered transfer when woven into a learning text (d = .74) did not lower it when they were set apart in grey boxes and announced beforehand as a separate topic (transfer equal to the text without extras; BF01 = 4.57), so the harm C8 asserts depends on how the extras are presented, not only on whether they are there.

   Strongest reading and verdict reasoning

   Steelmans to: C8 says extras lower transfer on average in controlled experiments, with nulls only in a real course with clips flagged as not for the test (Maloy et al. 2019) and a confound-controlled lab study (Tislar & Steelman 2021); Wesenberg et al. reproduce the harm inside the same experiment (unmarked extras vs none, d = .74) and then remove it completely by a light change of presentation that does not tell learners to ignore the extras, with a powered sample (N = 195; a priori N = 179) and a Bayesian test for equivalence, so the unconditioned "extras lower transfer" is too broad: it holds for extras woven into the material, and not shown where they are visibly set apart as a separate topic.

   Why: Nightly-attacks 2026-10-13 Europe/Stockholm. Full text read (open access, PMC12879520; British Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 382–400, published online 21 August 2025; not stored). Table 3, covariate-adjusted transfer means (max 6): no extras 2.90 (SE .22), unmarked extras 1.82 (.21), topic signals 2.96 (.21), topic and irrelevance signals 2.40 (.20); ANCOVA F(3, 189) = 6.42, p < .001; planned contrasts: unmarked vs none p < .001, d = .74; topic signals vs unmarked p < .001, d = −.79; topic-and-irrelevance vs topic signals p = .055, d = .39; Bayesian ANCOVA no extras vs topic signals BF01 = 4.57. Retention F(3, 189) = 1.23, p = .301. Interest higher with extras (p = .009), and interest mediated small gains in retention and transfer. Kill withheld: (1) the kill-condition asks for a replication or meta-analysis in which extras do not lower transfer; here unmarked extras did lower it, which supports the average; (2) one online experiment with mostly adult students, a single short text and an immediate test; the authors call it a first finding needing replication; (3) a separation prompt did not reduce the harm in Kienitz, Krebs & Eitel 2023 (as reported by Wesenberg et al.). Not a restatement: the Claim field already names Maloy et al.'s clips flagged as not for the test, and Bounds mention that flagging extras as irrelevant removed the harm in one lab study (Eitel et al. 2019, second-hand); this result is a within-study test in which marking the extras as a separate topic, without calling them irrelevant, removed the transfer harm, while calling them irrelevant added nothing. Not a duplicate: first ledger entry from this study. Claim, Ages and Bounds rewritten same turn; brief and the practical rule rewritten.

4. #5 survived 23 October 2026 · Wesenberg, Krieglstein, Schneider & Rey 2025 · target: kill-condition

   If gathering interesting but irrelevant paragraphs into one block, instead of interspersing them, is enough to stop them lowering transfer, or if the extras do not lower transfer in a new randomised replication at all, C8's kill-condition (a replication in which seductive details do not lower transfer) is met for unmarked extras set apart by position alone.

   Strongest reading and verdict reasoning

   Steelmans to: C8's presentation bound shows that setting extras apart in grey boxes announced as a separate topic removed the harm (Wesenberg et al. 2026); Harp & Mayer 1998 found placement mattered, and disruption accounts predict that one interruption costs less than five; a randomised experiment with a no-extras control, a grouped arm and an interspersed arm, using the same text as the study behind the presentation bound, is a fair new test of whether the harm survives when the extras are simply moved out of the flow of the text.

   Why: Nightly-attacks 2026-10-23 Europe/Stockholm (widened-search slot for C8, re-checked tonight). DOI checked on Crossref (title, four authors, Applied Cognitive Psychology 39(3), e70065, May 2025). Full text read (open access, CC BY 4.0, stored privately as ). 162 took part; 26 excluded for notes or aids, 2 extreme time outliers, 7 failed attention checks; N = 127 (no extras 46, grouped 43, interspersed 38), below the planned 162. Adjusted transfer means (max 6): 2.85 (SE 0.23), 2.02 (0.24), 2.18 (0.26); extras vs none β = −0.45, t = −2.60, p = 0.012; grouped vs interspersed β = 0.09, t = 0.45, p = 0.656; Bayesian ANCOVA BF01 = 4.34. Retention 6.73, 5.01, 5.91 of 18; extras vs none β = −0.34, p = 0.061. Time on page 224.07 and 229.55 s with extras vs 182.48 s without (p = 0.042). Kill fails: unmarked extras lowered transfer in a new randomised sample, whether grouped or interspersed, even with more time on the page. Caveats: same lab and text as Wesenberg et al. 2026; online, self-paced, immediate tests; transfer α = 0.69; below planned N; not reported as preregistered. Not a duplicate (prior C8 survival: Cheng et al. 2026 meta-analysis; Wesenberg et al. 2026 is a different sample and design). Not a restatement: the presentation bound says nothing about extras set apart by position alone. Claim field unchanged; Bounds add the survival; brief C8 paragraph and the practical rule Limits record it. Status unchanged (weakened). Not a preprint.

5. #7 survived 27 October 2026 · Bender, Renkl, Scheiter, Richter & Eitel 2026 · target: kill-condition

   If presenting interesting but irrelevant extras as mouse-over hyperlinks — visibly separated and rated less relevant than integrated extras — were enough that transfer matched a no-extras control without an irrelevance instruction, C8's kill-condition (a replication in which seductive details do not lower transfer) would be met for that format. It was not: without the irrelevance instruction, hyperlink extras still lowered transfer.

   Strongest reading and verdict reasoning

   Steelmans to: C8 dies on a replication in which seductive details do not lower transfer in the same instruction time; authors predicted that hyperlink format alone would cue irrelevance and remove the harm (informed-use / presentation bound); a randomised 3 × 2 online experiment with a no-extras control is a fair new test of that kill path.

   Why: Extra attack pass 2026-10-27 Europe/Stockholm (week-2 push; FreiDok OA full text). DOI checked on Crossref (title, five authors, JCAL 42(2), e70205, 2026). Full text read (CC BY; stored privately). N = 165 analysed; chemistry atomic-models unit; retention and transfer (11 items, α = .75); spatial ability and prior chemistry experience as covariates. Multivariate main/interaction effects ns (all p > .092). Univariate transfer main effect of SD condition F(2,157) = 2.89, p = .059, η²p = .04. In the hyperlink arms, the orthogonal contrast (uninformed vs informed + control) predicted transfer, β = 0.15, p = .042, η²p = .06 — uninformed hyperlink worse than informed hyperlink and no-extras control (who did not differ; residual p = .095). Table 2 transfer z-means: hyperlink no-SD 0.19, uninformed −0.12, informed −0.03. Integrated arms did not replicate the classic informed-use pattern (transfer contrast β = 0.01, p = .890). Kill fails: unmarked hyperlink extras still lowered transfer; an explicit irrelevance instruction was still needed. Caveats: online, mostly university students, self-paced, one topic; overall MANOVA transfer only marginal; integrated SD harm itself weak in this sample. Not a duplicate (prior C8 survivals: Cheng et al. 2026 meta; Wesenberg et al. 2025 grouped). Not a preprint. Claim field unchanged; Bounds and the practical rule Limits record the survival. Status unchanged (weakened). C8 now at 3 of 3 survivals → floor; the promotion rule promotion of K46 as C19 in the same turn.