Evidence
Why daily practice works.
Theorise is built on a handful of well-studied findings about how people learn. Here they are, with what each one does not claim.
The training analogy
Reps, not reading.
Like any training, what works is short sessions, repeated, with rest — and doing the thing, not just reading about it. It’s about practising money decisions until they’re yours.
Short
A few minutes, focused
Spaced
Come back tomorrow, not all at once
Retrieval
Answer first, then see why
The claims
What the research says — and what it doesn’t.
-
Spreading practice over days helps you remember for longer than cramming the same practice into one go.
What it doesn’t mean · It compares spreading practice out with cramming the same amount. It is not a promise of a perfect schedule, or that you will never forget.- Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer (2006). Psychological Bulletin. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted & Pashler (2008). Psychological Science. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Carpenter, Pan & Butler (2022). Nature Reviews Psychology. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
Pulling an answer out of your own head, not just re-reading it, makes it stick better.
What it doesn’t mean · It helps with the things you practise recalling. It is not a general boost to memory, and these studies did not measure Theorise.- Roediger & Karpicke (2006). Psychological Science. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Rowland (2014). Psychological Bulletin. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Yang, Luo, Vadillo, Yu & Shanks (2021). Psychological Bulletin. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Adesope, Trevisan & Sundararajan (2017). Review of Educational Research. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
Mixing related kinds of problems helps you learn which approach each one needs.
What it doesn’t mean · It is about related problems. Mixing anything at all is not shown to help, and mixed practice can feel slower while you do it.- Rohrer & Taylor (2007). Instructional Science. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Rohrer, Dedrick & Stershic (2015). Journal of Educational Psychology. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Brunmair & Richter (2019). Psychological Bulletin. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
Knowledge and skills fade when they are not used; regular practice keeps them fresh.
What it doesn’t mean · Forgetting is gradual and differs from skill to skill. Dramatic figures about forgetting most of something in a day come from nonsense syllables, not from meaningful skills.- Murre & Dros (2015). PLOS ONE. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Arthur, Bennett, Stanush & McNelly (1998). Human Performance. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Tatel & Ackerman (2025). Psychological Bulletin. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
A few focused minutes, done regularly, is a practical way to fit spaced practice into a day.
What it doesn’t mean · Short sessions are not proven better than courses — they are a practical way to practise often. The evidence for short formats on their own is still mixed.- Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer (2006). Psychological Bulletin. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Monib, Qazi & Apong (2025). Heliyon. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
Across 76 randomised trials, financial education improved money knowledge and, by a smaller amount, money behaviour, on average.
What it doesn’t mean · It is an average across many programmes — not a promise that any one course or app will change what you do with your money.- Kaiser, Lusardi, Menkhoff & Urban (2022). Journal of Financial Economics. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
Money knowledge from a one-off course can fade, and research recommends refreshing it regularly and close to real decisions.
What it doesn’t mean · It does not mean one-off courses are useless; how fast money knowledge fades is still being studied.- Fernandes, Lynch & Netemeyer (2014). Management Science. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Kaiser & Menkhoff (2017). World Bank Economic Review. Source (opens in a new tab) →
-
Well-designed learning games can teach at least as well as non-game lessons. A 2024 four-country trial found a financial-education game raised students' financial literacy.
What it doesn’t mean · Games are not proven better than other teaching, that trial was with students rather than adults, and no study has measured Theorise itself.- Clark, Tanner-Smith & Killingsworth (2016). Review of Educational Research. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Wouters, van Nimwegen, van Oostendorp & van der Spek (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology. Source (opens in a new tab) →
- Cannistrà, De Beckker, Agasisti, Amagir, Põder, Vartiak & De Witte (2024). Journal of Comparative Economics. Source (opens in a new tab) →
Every claim is from the claims registry; the page is regenerated from it. If a source is retracted or weakened, the card changes. Tell us if we’ve got one wrong. Theorise is education, not financial advice.
TRAIN IT
Play it in your browser.
Three quick rounds in your browser. No sign-up, nothing to download.