Seductive Details in Learning Text—Less Harmful if They Are Grouped Together Instead of Interspersed?
Adults / lifelong learning Foundations of optimal learning Attention and memory
Links to claims
Supports (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C8 | Randomised online experiment (N = 127): unmarked extras lowered transfer (2.02 and 2.18 vs 2.85 of 6; p = .012), and grouping them in one block did no better than interspersing them (BF01 = 4.34). Kill-condition test survived 2026-10-23. |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.
Source note
Syntes: Wesenberg, Krieglstein, Schneider & Rey (2025) — grouping unmarked extras in one block does not stop the harm
Källa: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70065 (Applied Cognitive Psychology 39(3), e70065; open access)
Verified content
- [full text] 162 students took part online (Prolific); 35 excluded (notes or aids, time outliers, attention check), final N = 127 (no extras 46, grouped 43, interspersed 38), below the planned 162. Mean age 24.42; 36% undergraduates, 20% graduate students, 32% at secondary school. Very low prior knowledge.
- [full text] Self-paced 461-word text on how coral reefs form; five interesting but irrelevant paragraphs on uses of corals, unmarked, either grouped in one block (position counterbalanced) or interspersed. Recall (max 18) and transfer (six open questions, max 6, α = 0.69) right after reading.
- [full text] Transfer (adjusted means): 2.85, 2.02, 2.18; extras vs none β = −0.45, p = 0.012; grouped vs interspersed p = 0.656, BF01 = 4.34. Retention 6.73, 5.01, 5.91 (extras vs none p = 0.061). Extras raised extraneous load (p = 0.034), not interest (p = 0.473).
- [full text] Time on the learning page: 224.07 s (grouped) and 229.55 s (interspersed) vs 182.48 s (no extras), p = 0.042.
Limits
- [full text] One online experiment, below the planned sample, immediate tests only; the authors call the grouped-vs-interspersed evidence rather inconclusive.
- [assessment] Same lab and text as Wesenberg et al. 2026 (topic and irrelevance signals), so not an independent replication of materials.
Role for C8
- [assessment] Kill-condition test survived (2026-10-23): unmarked extras lowered transfer again in a new randomised sample, whether grouped or interspersed, even with more time on the page. It also shows that the presentation bound depends on marking and announcing the extras, not on placing them together.
Added 2026-10-23 by the project (nightly attack run, widened-search slot for C8). [abstract] = from the published abstract; [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.
Metadata as recorded
- ID
- CLT-012
- Tier
- RCT
- Closed-book follow-up
- n/a (retention and transfer tests right after reading, without the text)
- Titel
- Seductive Details in Learning Text—Less Harmful if They Are Grouped Together Instead of Interspersed?
- Författare
- Wesenberg, L.; Krieglstein, F.; Schneider, S.; Rey, G. D.
- År
- 2025
- Källa/DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70065
- URL
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.70065 (open access); also ZORA, https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-284039
- Tidskrift
- Applied Cognitive Psychology 39(3), e70065
- Typ
- randomised online experiment, three groups (no extras; extras grouped in one block; extras interspersed); N = 127 German-speaking students recruited via Prolific
- Åldersgrupp
- vuxen-livslangt (mean age 24.42; about a third at secondary school)
- Teman
- optimalt-larande-grunder;uppmarksamhet-och-minne
- Hämtad
- 2026-10-17
- Paywall
- open access (Wiley)
- Verifierad
- Crossref metadata (title, authors Wesenberg/Krieglstein/Schneider/Rey, Applied Cognitive Psychology 39(3), e70065, 2025) checked 2026-10-23
- Status
- in the library since 2026-10-23 (nightly attack run; C8 kill-condition test survived). Deep-mined 2026-10-23.
The original files (PDF or abstract) are kept in the project archive and are not published here.