Stories may be easier to remember and comprehend than essays because stories resemble our everyday experiences (Bruner, <a href="#CR10" rid="CR10" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1986</a>; Graesser et al., <a href="#CR39" rid="CR39" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1991</a>). People experience life in the real world as temporally ordered causal events, organized around personal goals, with the encountering and overcoming of obstacles to these goals resulting in emotional experiences; this parallels the structure of stories (Graesser, McNamara, &amp; Louwerse, <a href="#CR37" rid="CR37" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2003</a>; Graesser, Singer, &amp; Trabasso, <a href="#CR38" rid="CR38" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1994</a>).

Familiarity with the structure and content of a text is referred to as relevant “prior knowledge” (Dochy, Segers, &amp; Buehl, <a href="#CR28" rid="CR28" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1999</a>), and stories might be more memorable and comprehensible thanks to readers having greater prior knowledge.

Readers are less likely to benefit from prior knowledge while reading an essay, relative to stories, and are therefore less likely to benefit from easy inferences. This combination could easily put expository texts at a disadvantage when it comes to memory and comprehension (Coté, Goldman, &amp; Saul, <a href="#CR18" rid="CR18" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1998</a>; McNamara, <a href="#CR68" rid="CR68" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2004</a>).

A final reason to believe that narratives may be more memorable than expository texts hinges on the ability of emotions to facilitate memory (Hamann, <a href="#CR42" rid="CR42" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2001</a>). Affectively charged recollections have been dubbed “flash-bulb” memories, to communicate the idea that emotional events are deeply imprinted on the mind, like a flash aiding photography (Winograd &amp; Neisser, <a href="#CR107" rid="CR107" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1992</a>). This emotional facilitation of memory appears to result from a prioritizing of emotional material when it comes to attention and perception (Brosch, Pourtois, &amp; Sander, <a href="#CR9" rid="CR9" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2010</a>), with personal relevance playing a key role (Levine &amp; Edelstein, <a href="#CR58" rid="CR58" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2009</a>). To the extent that stories are better able to evoke strong emotions than expository texts (cf. Mar, Oatley, Djikic, &amp; Mullin, <a href="#CR62" rid="CR62" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2011</a>), we would expect stories to be better recalled than exposition.

Our primary research question was whether memory and comprehension differ for narrative versus expository texts. Our three-level random-effects meta-analysis of 150 effect-sizes found that, on average, memory and comprehension of narrative texts was superior to that for expository texts.

Our meta-analysis of 150 effect-sizes (from over 75 unique samples and more than 33,000 participants) found that people had an easier time comprehending and recalling narrative texts compared to expository ones. The average magnitude of this effect was more than a half a standard deviation, with a 95% CI ranging from just more than one-quarter to slightly more than three-quarters of a standard deviation. Moreover, this result appears to be robust, and not driven by any one particular effect-size or study. There was a great deal of variability in these effects, however, almost all of which represents true heterogeneity and not random sampling error. This variability originated primarily from differences between studies.

In closing, the totality of the evidence available finds that people have an easier time comprehending and recalling information presented in a story compared to that presented in an essay. This has potential implications for a number of disciplines, not least of which is the realm of education.

To that end, the advantage afforded to narratives over exposition in this domain should be considered whenever possible. We must emphasize, however, that these results should not be interpreted as a suggestion to force all information into a narrative form for pedagogical purposes, especially when such information is not typically presented in this way.

It is quite possible that mixed genres like narrative journalism, for example, could hold the key for leveraging the advantages of narrative–its ability to capture interest and communicate experience through imagination – to meet the goals of exposition to inform and educate (van Krieken &amp; Sanders, <a href="#CR102" rid="CR102" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">in press</a>).

So how often should information be boostered? We recommend that you send boosters out in three phases. You can keep this in mind by remembering 2+2+2. Send out boosters after two days, two weeks, and two months.

This first set of boosters should be “recognition boosters.” The strategy here is just to get people to try to recognize the right answer from a list of options.

The second phase of boosters should be sent about two weeks after the training and at this time you should send out “generative boosters.” In a generative booster, the learner does not just recognize the right answer from a list. Instead, they have to think about the topic and then create an answer out of their head.

The third phase of boosters should be sent about two months after the training, and at this time you should send out “integrative boosters.” An integrative booster again prompts the learner to retrieve the information, but this question specifically asks them to provide concrete examples of how they have made use of this information in their job.