Examining levels of external memory support on memory performance, performance predictions, and study effort.

We often use external memory supports to aid our memory abilities. Previous work examining the effects of such supports on memory and metamemory have often focused on comparing all-or-nothing scenarios, namely, comparing full support (supports able to store to-be-remembered information verbatim) with no support at all (i.e., remembering with one's internal, biological memory alone). Across two preregistered experiments, we compared how varied levels of expected external memory support influenced expected memory performance, actual memory performance, and perceptions of study effort, both when the expected support was available and unavailable. Results suggest that while expecting full support and partial support both led to memory costs, the cost of expecting full support was explainable, at least in part, with a reduced study-effort explanation, while the cost of expecting partial support was not. We propose an alternative transfer-appropriate processing type explanation for memory costs that focuses on how study processes align with the processing demands at test. Results suggest that both the study-effort reduction and transfer-appropriate processing hypotheses work together to give rise to the current findings. The current work also provides insights into our ability to monitor and control memory in response to expecting varying degrees of external memory support. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).