1
00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:02,280
You leave a meeting feeling 
pretty good. 

2
00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:06,360
There was clear direction, 
action items were assigned, 

3
00:00:06,840 --> 00:00:10,040
everybody nodded. 
And then two weeks later you 

4
00:00:10,040 --> 00:00:13,280
realize everybody walked away 
with a completely different 

5
00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:17,760
version of what was decided. 
Same meeting, same slide deck, 

6
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,120
totally different memories. 
The gap between we covered this 

7
00:00:22,120 --> 00:00:25,920
and we actually remember this 
causes more team friction than 

8
00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:29,160
almost any tooling or process 
problem that you could imagine. 

9
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:32,119
O Today we're going to unpack 
why that happens and why 

10
00:00:32,119 --> 00:00:34,920
alignment without recall is 
basically an illusion. 

11
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:45,720
What's up, UX fam? 
Welcome to another edition of 

12
00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:49,040
the Cognition Catalog, where 
every week or so we'll dig into 

13
00:00:49,040 --> 00:00:52,120
a new cognitive bias and explore
how that bias can impact how our

14
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:54,840
team works together and what we 
can do to ensure we don't get 

15
00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:57,240
caught up in the pitfalls. 
Because working with people is 

16
00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:00,440
hard, and the more insights we 
have into the human edition make

17
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,600
it just a little bit easier to 
learn more about the testing 

18
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:05,120
effects. 
You can find more resources at 

19
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,000
cognition<spelling>catalog</spelling>.com.
Sign up for the newsletter to 

20
00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:10,560
get a new bias in your inbox 
every week and make sure to 

21
00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:12,080
subscribe wherever you listen to
podcasts. 

22
00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:13,920
You know never have to worry 
about falling for any of these 

23
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:16,080
cognitive biases again. 
And if you think you're getting 

24
00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:17,960
something out of the show, I 
would really appreciate you 

25
00:01:17,960 --> 00:01:20,360
leaving a five star review that 
would help me out so much. 

26
00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:22,400
Shout out to this week's 
sponsor, Mobbin. 

27
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:24,960
If you're tired of staring at a 
blank Figma canvas. 

28
00:01:24,960 --> 00:01:28,320
Mobbin gives you instant access 
to over 400,000 beautifully 

29
00:01:28,320 --> 00:01:31,880
designed UI screens and user 
flows with a library that grows 

30
00:01:31,880 --> 00:01:34,160
bigger every week. 
Kick start your creativity, 

31
00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:37,120
streamline your workflow, and 
level up your design process. 

32
00:01:37,320 --> 00:01:41,880
Visit mobbin.com/beyond UX to 
get 20% off Mobbin Pro and never

33
00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:44,760
run out of inspiration again. 
And as always, thanks so much to

34
00:01:44,760 --> 00:01:47,480
Chris, Seroquan, Stacy, Rodney, 
Megan, Andrew, John, Mark, 

35
00:01:47,480 --> 00:01:50,680
Kevin, Jason, Michelle, Martino,
Adina, and Zoe for all the 

36
00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:52,240
support. 
And if you want to join these 

37
00:01:52,240 --> 00:01:54,600
fine folks and many others and 
help keep the show independent 

38
00:01:54,600 --> 00:01:57,680
and that free, you'll get 
exclusive access to the entire 

39
00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:00,360
video library of episodes, 
including episodes before 

40
00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:02,560
they're even released. 
For more information how you can

41
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:04,600
support the show and help more 
people find out about what we're

42
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:08,120
doing, make sure to check out 
beyonduxesign.com/support. 

43
00:02:08,199 --> 00:02:12,120
So this illusion of learning 
shows up in teams way more often

44
00:02:12,120 --> 00:02:15,520
than we like to admit. 
Most teams don't fail because 

45
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:18,120
they don't talk enough. 
They fail because they mistake 

46
00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:21,320
talking for learning. 
Now think about how often this 

47
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:23,160
happens. 
A decision gets made in a 

48
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:25,400
meeting. 
There's a slide deck, there's a 

49
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:29,440
discussion, everybody nods 
along, and then it just quietly 

50
00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:32,600
evaporates. 2 sprints later, 
somebody asks a question that 

51
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:34,640
assumes the opposite decision 
was made. 

52
00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:37,280
Somebody else on the team 
references A constraint that was

53
00:02:37,280 --> 00:02:38,720
supposedly quote UN quote 
lockdown. 

54
00:02:38,720 --> 00:02:41,680
And then someone else says, 
wait, when did that change? 

55
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:45,160
But nothing changed. 
It just wasn't remembered. 

56
00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:47,800
Teams fall for this phenomenon 
constantly. 

57
00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:51,440
During road map reviews, Sprint 
planning, retros, and even on 

58
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:54,360
boarding. 
We overload people with context.

59
00:02:54,360 --> 00:02:58,640
We assume that exposure equals 
understanding, and then we move 

60
00:02:58,640 --> 00:03:01,200
on. 
But memory doesn't work that 

61
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:04,000
way. 
Listening is passive, reading is

62
00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,040
passive, and even agreeing is 
passive. 

63
00:03:07,400 --> 00:03:10,160
And passive exposure gives us a 
dangerous illusion. 

64
00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:12,880
We think alignment happened when
it really didn't. 

65
00:03:13,400 --> 00:03:14,960
Now, onboarding is one of the 
clearest examples. 

66
00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:17,720
New hires will sit through days 
of reading through pages and 

67
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:21,280
pages of documentation, 
architecture overviews, process 

68
00:03:21,280 --> 00:03:25,000
maps, user flows, strategy 
decks, training videos, and 

69
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:27,760
Here's how We Do things 
sessions, and everybody leaves 

70
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:30,040
feeling good. 
But a week later, that new hire 

71
00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:32,240
hesitates. 
They ask the same questions 

72
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,600
again and again, or they avoid 
making decisions altogether, Not

73
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:38,560
because they weren't paying 
attention, but because nothing 

74
00:03:38,560 --> 00:03:41,280
forced them to retrieve what 
they learned. 

75
00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:43,160
The same thing happens in 
retros. 

76
00:03:43,640 --> 00:03:46,200
Teams review what went wrong. 
They talk about lessons learned 

77
00:03:46,200 --> 00:03:48,840
and capture action items. 
But unless those lessons are 

78
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:51,560
actively recalled later during 
things like planning or 

79
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:54,760
estimation or decision making, 
that team doesn't actually 

80
00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:57,760
change behavior. 
The retro becomes just a ritual 

81
00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:00,160
of reflection, not one of 
learning. 

82
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:02,880
Even experienced teams fall into
this trap during complex 

83
00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:05,760
projects. 
We assume shared context because

84
00:04:05,960 --> 00:04:07,440
we've all been around for a 
while. 

85
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:10,200
But over time, understanding 
starts to drift. 

86
00:04:10,280 --> 00:04:12,760
People remember different 
rationales, different risks, 

87
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:15,520
different trade-offs. 
Alignment starts to decay 

88
00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:18,720
quietly until it just blows up 
and shows up as rework or 

89
00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:20,880
frustration or outright 
conflict. 

90
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:23,520
And this is where the testing 
effect becomes incredibly 

91
00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:26,160
useful. 
Not as a teaching trick, but as 

92
00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:29,000
a team operating principle. 
So what is the testing effect? 

93
00:04:29,080 --> 00:04:31,600
We tend to remember information 
better and learn more deeply 

94
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:34,800
when we actively retrieve that 
information from memory rather 

95
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:36,600
than just rereading it over and 
over. 

96
00:04:37,000 --> 00:04:39,680
This phenomenon shows that 
practice tests and retrieval 

97
00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:41,440
practice strengthen memory 
retention. 

98
00:04:41,440 --> 00:04:45,360
More than just passive study, it
highlights that engaging our 

99
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:49,440
recall mechanism is itself a 
powerful learning strategy that 

100
00:04:49,440 --> 00:04:52,360
enhances long term memory. 
The roots of the testing effect 

101
00:04:52,360 --> 00:04:55,600
go back to early memory research
in the late 1800s and early 

102
00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:58,160
1900s. 
One of the earliest contributors

103
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:01,680
was Herman Emminghaus and he 
studied how memory fades over 

104
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:03,880
time. 
His work on what he called the 

105
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,400
forgetting curve shows that 
information decays quickly 

106
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:10,440
without reinforcement. 
But what he didn't yet show, but

107
00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:13,720
helped to set the stage for, was
how retrieval changes that 

108
00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:15,680
curve. 
The testing effect became more 

109
00:05:15,680 --> 00:05:17,800
clearly defined in the 20th 
century. 

110
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:20,960
As psychologists began to 
compare different study 

111
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:24,240
strategies, researchers noticed 
something counterintuitive. 

112
00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:28,680
People who spent less time 
reviewing material but more time

113
00:05:28,680 --> 00:05:31,560
testing themselves often 
remembered more in the long run.

114
00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:33,920
And this challenged that common 
assumption that repetition, 

115
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:36,520
petition, and exposure were the 
best ways to learn. 

116
00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:39,840
Modern research in the early 
2000s, especially work by Henry 

117
00:05:39,840 --> 00:05:43,320
Roediger and Jeffrey Karpic, 
solidified that idea. 

118
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:46,440
And their studies showed that 
retrieval practice, being asked 

119
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:50,000
to recall information without 
prompts, produce stronger, 

120
00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:53,360
longer lasting memory than just 
restudying notes over and over 

121
00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:55,800
again. 
And even when people felt less 

122
00:05:55,800 --> 00:05:59,920
confident during testing, their 
actual retention was higher days

123
00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:01,840
or weeks later. 
And what makes the testing 

124
00:06:01,840 --> 00:06:04,840
effect especially important is 
that it exposes poses A mismatch

125
00:06:04,840 --> 00:06:07,040
between confidence and 
competence. 

126
00:06:07,200 --> 00:06:11,200
Passive review feels productive,
but it doesn't create durable 

127
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:14,080
memory. 
Active recall feels harder, and 

128
00:06:14,080 --> 00:06:17,120
sometimes it's uncomfortable, 
but it's what actually builds 

129
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:19,840
understanding. 
And that gap shows up constantly

130
00:06:19,840 --> 00:06:23,840
in how teams think they've 
aligned until reality proves 

131
00:06:23,840 --> 00:06:26,320
otherwise. 
And inside teams, the phenomenon

132
00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:30,000
quietly shapes what people 
actually remember versus what 

133
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:33,200
they think they remember. 
Teams exchange large amounts of 

134
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:36,000
information all the time, 
through meetings, documentation,

135
00:06:36,000 --> 00:06:39,400
slack messages, presentations. 
But without opportunities to 

136
00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:42,840
retrieve and restate that 
information, much of it fades 

137
00:06:42,840 --> 00:06:45,200
quickly or becomes distorted 
over time. 

138
00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:48,240
And this shows up in day-to-day 
work when teams repeatedly 

139
00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:51,640
revisit the same decisions. 
They forget why something was 

140
00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:55,080
done a certain way, or they 
disagree on what they previously

141
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:57,360
aligned on. 
And often this isn't due to poor

142
00:06:57,360 --> 00:06:58,920
documentation or lack of 
attention. 

143
00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:02,480
It's because the information was
never actively retrieved after 

144
00:07:02,480 --> 00:07:05,640
it was first shared. 
Passive exposure only creates 

145
00:07:05,640 --> 00:07:10,040
familiarity, not durability. 
This also influences how shared 

146
00:07:10,040 --> 00:07:11,840
understanding forms within a 
group. 

147
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:14,360
When team members explain ideas 
of one another, or they 

148
00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:17,600
summarize outcomes from memory, 
or they restate goals without 

149
00:07:17,600 --> 00:07:20,640
notes, they are reinforcing 
collective knowledge. 

150
00:07:20,840 --> 00:07:24,120
And those moments of recall help
surface misunderstandings early,

151
00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:27,480
before they harden into 
assumptions that ultimately slow

152
00:07:27,480 --> 00:07:31,120
progress or create friction. 
So in retrospectives, planning 

153
00:07:31,120 --> 00:07:33,640
sessions, cross functional 
discussions, that retrieval 

154
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:36,080
naturally acts as a diagnostic 
tool. 

155
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:38,760
When people struggle to recall 
the decision or rationale now, 

156
00:07:38,920 --> 00:07:41,800
it signals that the knowledge 
was never fully integrated in 

157
00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:44,480
the 1st place. 
Teams that normalize recall 

158
00:07:44,480 --> 00:07:47,160
rather than treating it as a 
failure are better positioned to

159
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:50,280
course correct and build more 
resilient shared understanding 

160
00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:52,280
over time. 
And importantly, the testing 

161
00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:55,040
effect highlights why 
psychological safety matters. 

162
00:07:55,520 --> 00:07:59,000
Retrieval requires speaking up. 
It requires thinking out loud. 

163
00:07:59,320 --> 00:08:02,120
And maybe most important, it 
requires being wrong. 

164
00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:05,520
If team culture punishes 
uncertainty, people will start 

165
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:08,000
to avoid recall and they'll 
default to that passive 

166
00:08:08,000 --> 00:08:10,160
agreement. 
And over time, all this does is 

167
00:08:10,160 --> 00:08:13,160
create shallow alignment and 
hidden confusion that only 

168
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:15,600
surfaces when things finally 
breakdown. 

169
00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:18,080
So how can you harness the 
testing effect in your 

170
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:20,600
day-to-day? 
Well, first, tree alignment is 

171
00:08:20,600 --> 00:08:23,840
something that you verify, not 
something that you assume. 

172
00:08:24,240 --> 00:08:26,480
Shared meetings and documents. 
Presentation creates the 

173
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:29,640
appearance of alignment, but 
recall reveals whether it 

174
00:08:29,640 --> 00:08:32,600
actually existed. 
So asking people to restate 

175
00:08:32,600 --> 00:08:35,480
decisions or constraints can 
surface those gaps early when 

176
00:08:35,480 --> 00:08:38,440
they're easy to correct, rather 
than later when it gets even 

177
00:08:38,440 --> 00:08:41,760
harder to fix. 
Next, design onboarding around 

178
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:45,720
explanation, not exposure. 
New hires learn faster and 

179
00:08:45,720 --> 00:08:48,600
retain more when they're asked 
to explain workflows, decision 

180
00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:52,640
systems back to the team. 
But make sure they know that 

181
00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:54,400
you're not testing their 
competence. 

182
00:08:54,920 --> 00:08:57,000
Reinforce that you're 
strengthening memory and 

183
00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:01,240
confidence at the same time. 
Next, design team rituals that 

184
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:04,200
reward remembering, not just 
shipping. 

185
00:09:04,680 --> 00:09:06,720
Stand ups, planning sessions, 
retros. 

186
00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:10,000
They can all support retrieval 
if they ask people to recall 

187
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:11,920
goals, assumptions, and lessons 
over time. 

188
00:09:12,280 --> 00:09:14,920
When teams revisit and they 
restate what matters, they're 

189
00:09:14,920 --> 00:09:18,080
not being repetitive. 
They're reinforcing the mental 

190
00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:21,640
models that guide daily 
decisions, and next, normalize 

191
00:09:21,640 --> 00:09:24,320
recall as a team habit, not as a
performance signal. 

192
00:09:24,600 --> 00:09:28,000
When recall feels like a 
valuation, people start to avoid

193
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:29,720
it. 
But when it's framed as 

194
00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:33,280
collective sense making, it 
strengthens trust and shared 

195
00:09:33,280 --> 00:09:36,080
understanding. 
Teams that practice retrieval 

196
00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:40,240
openly reduce confusion, rework,
and unnecessary conflict. 

197
00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:44,000
Lastly, maybe the most important
but probably the simplest, end 

198
00:09:44,000 --> 00:09:46,320
meetings with prompts that 
require recall. 

199
00:09:46,600 --> 00:09:49,280
So instead of ending a meeting 
by asking, does anyone have any 

200
00:09:49,280 --> 00:09:51,400
questions which only invite 
silence? 

201
00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:53,840
Try asking. 
Can someone summarize what we 

202
00:09:53,840 --> 00:09:56,760
just decided or what did we 
decide or what should we 

203
00:09:56,760 --> 00:09:59,840
remember from this? 
That one question forces recall 

204
00:09:59,960 --> 00:10:02,880
and instantly reveals whether 
alignment actually existed. 

205
00:10:03,320 --> 00:10:05,920
And ultimately, the testing 
effect tells us something simple

206
00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:08,840
and uncomfortable. 
If people aren't asked to recall

207
00:10:08,840 --> 00:10:10,960
something, they probably won't 
remember it. 

208
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:13,520
And it's important to remember 
that correction doesn't require 

209
00:10:13,520 --> 00:10:16,480
quizzes or formal tests. 
It requires intentional 

210
00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:19,600
retrieval moments built into 
everyday work. 

211
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:23,040
All right, y'all, that's it for 
the Cognition Catalog for today.

212
00:10:23,040 --> 00:10:24,640
I hope we helped to shed a 
little bit of light on the 

213
00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:29,080
testing effect and how we can 
use it to impact our day-to-day 

214
00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:30,760
work. 
But I'm curious, have you 

215
00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:33,040
harnessed the power of the 
testing effect in your daily 

216
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:34,480
work? 
How'd it go? 

217
00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:36,280
I'd love to hear about it. 
Let me know what you think on 

218
00:10:36,280 --> 00:10:38,920
LinkedIn or shoot me an e-mail 
at hello@beyonduxdesign.com. 

219
00:10:39,160 --> 00:10:41,640
I'd love to hear from you. 
To learn more about the testing 

220
00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:43,120
effect. 
You can find more resources at 

221
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,000
Cognition catalog.com. 
Sign up for the newsletter to 

222
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:48,600
get a new bias in your inbox 
every week, and make sure to 

223
00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:50,280
subscribe wherever you listen to
podcasts. 

224
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:52,440
You never have to worry about 
falling for any of these biases 

225
00:10:52,440 --> 00:10:53,800
again. 
And if you think you're getting 

226
00:10:53,800 --> 00:10:55,800
something out of the show, I 
would really appreciate you 

227
00:10:55,800 --> 00:10:58,160
leaving a five star review. 
That would help me out so much. 

228
00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:00,560
And if you want to pick up some 
big, beautiful art prints and 

229
00:11:00,560 --> 00:11:02,800
some select biases, make sure to
check out Beyond UX 

230
00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:05,600
design.com/shop. 
Get free shipping in all orders 

231
00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:08,760
over $30 and use the promo code 
listener to get 10% off your 

232
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:10,720
entire order. 
If you have a favorite bias that

233
00:11:10,720 --> 00:11:11,960
you want to see in print, let me
know. 

234
00:11:12,160 --> 00:11:14,560
I'd be happy to take requests. 
And if you're tired of staring 

235
00:11:14,560 --> 00:11:17,640
at a blank Figma Canvas, Mobbin 
gives you instant access to over

236
00:11:17,640 --> 00:11:21,360
400,000 beautifully designed UI 
screens and user flows with a 

237
00:11:21,360 --> 00:11:23,160
library that grows bigger every 
week. 

238
00:11:23,480 --> 00:11:26,160
Kick start your creativity, 
streamline your workflow, and 

239
00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:29,880
level up your design process. 
Visit mobbin.com/beyond UX to 

240
00:11:29,880 --> 00:11:33,360
get 20% off Mobbin Pro and never
run out of inspiration again. 

241
00:11:33,920 --> 00:11:35,360
Help keep the show independent 
and AD free. 

242
00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:37,920
Check out Beyond UX 
design.com/support to find out 

243
00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:40,960
how you can join Chris Seraquon,
Stacey, Rodney, Megan, Andrew, 

244
00:11:40,960 --> 00:11:44,240
John, Mark, Kevin, Jason, 
Michelle, Martitino, Edina, Zoe,

245
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:46,720
and many others and help keep 
the show independent and AD 

246
00:11:46,720 --> 00:11:48,640
free. 
You'll get exclusive access to 

247
00:11:48,640 --> 00:11:51,400
the entire video library of 
episodes, including episodes 

248
00:11:51,400 --> 00:11:53,920
before they're even released, 
and it's in access those videos 

249
00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:55,760
right now for as little as $5 a 
month. 

250
00:11:55,760 --> 00:11:58,040
And until next time, remember 
you're more than a designer 

251
00:11:58,160 --> 00:11:59,760
because there's more to UX 
design. 

252
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:01,800
I'll see you around. 
Take care of y'all.