A study of practice effects in recognition performance is reported. In each of two experiments, different conditions of training were followed by a critical final test. In Experiment I, a yes-no procedure was used on the critical test. During the training phase, some subjects were tested by the same method, either with or without item-by-item feedback, whereas others were given forced-choice tests. No significant changes in recognition accuracy were observed, either during the training trials or on the final test. However, feedback and experience with forced choice tests both served to increase the bias toward positive responding. In Experiment 2, the forced-choice procedure was used on the critical final test. Either foreed-choice tests or yes-no tests were given on the training lists. Again, there were no significant changes in performance. The absence of practice effects is attributed to the difficulty of identifying and implementing test-appropriate strategies. This study addressed two related questions: (1) Does subjects' ability to discriminate between targets and dis tractors on recognition tests change significantly as a function of practice? (2) Can response biases, if not the accuracy of recognition, be brought under experimental control by systematic manipulations of the conditions of training? The literature on learning to learn (LTL) provides ample documentation of practice gains in the per formance of tasks requiring recall of the target items (ef. Postman, 1971). While LTL in recognition has not been investigated extensively, little or no change in accuracy over successive study-test cycles was found in several experiments, both for categorized lists (Carey & Lockhart, 1973; Connor, 1977; Jacoby, 1973) and for lists of unrelated words (Connor, 1977; McCormack & Swenson, 1972). Divergent effects of practice on per formance may represent a potentially important differ ence between recall and recognition. The reasons for such a difference invite careful consideration. One possible explanation is that encoding and retrieval operations conducive to gains on subsequent tests can be more readily identified during the performance of recall tasks than during the performance of recognition tasks. For example, attention to the development of higher order units can lead to substantial increases in free recall (Mayhew, 1967). More generally, subjects can choose and practice the procedures they fmd useful for recall. The opportunities to do so with respect to recognition are likely to be much more limited. To be