DOCSLIB.ORG

Generation Enhances Semantic Processing? the Role Ofdistinctiveness in the Generation Effect

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Generation Enhances Semantic Processing? the Role Ofdistinctiveness in the Generation Effect Memory & Cognition 1989. 17 (5), 563-571 Generation enhances semantic processing? The role ofdistinctiveness in the generation effect SACHIKO KINOSHITA University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia The goal of the present study was to investigate the locus of the memory advantage for words that are generated according to a nonsemantic rule (letter transposition) over words that are presented intact (read words). In the first two experiments, a category instance generation task was used to test the possibility that the semantic features of generated words are more readily available than those of read words. This possibility was not supported. In Experiment 3, genera­ tion effects were found to depend on the level of meaningfulness of words in recall, but not in recognition. In Experiment 4, a between-list design eliminated the generation effect found in recall, but did not affect the generation effect in recognition. Taken together, these findings suggest that generating a target according to a letter transposition rule enhances the distinctiveness of the word along a nonsemantic dimension. The term generation effect refers to the memory ad­ of a biasing semantic context only the dominant meaning vantage found with verbal materials generated by a sub­ of a homograph is encoded (Simpson, 1981), McElroy ject, as opposed to verbal materials presented to the reasoned that only the dominant meaning of the homo­ subject intact by an experimenter. The subjects in ex­ graph target would be encoded in the presence of a rhyme perimental investigations of this effect typically are cue. Also, since the meaning of the word cannot be known presented with a rule and a cue for generating the target until the word is generated, any semantic processing (e.g., synonym: rapid-F for FAST), and the retention must occur after that. McElroy supposed that if no post­ ofthe generated items is compared with that for the items generation semantic processing occurred, then the that are presented intact. Generation effects have been dominant meaning of the target must be encoded to the reported with free recall, with cued recall and recogni­ same extent for read and generated targets, and that there­ tion, and with different rules (e.g., synonym, rhyme) for fore no generation effect should be found when recall is generating the target (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). cued with words that are related to the dominant mean­ Recently, McElroy (1987) suggested the possibility that ing. However, McElroy found a recall advantage for generated words may receive greater semantic process­ generated words over read words when recall was cued ing than read words even when the generation rule does with words related to the dominant meaning, yet not when not involve semantic processing. Such a view has an im­ recall was cued with words related to the subordinate portant implication for the finding that nonwords (which, meaning of the homographs. She concluded, therefore, by definition, must be generated according to a non­ that generated words received greater semantic process­ semantic rule) do not yield generation effects (e.g., see ing than read words after the (dominant) meaning was Nairne, Pusen, & Widner, 1985; Nairne & Widner, 1987; encoded. Payne, Neely, & Bums, 1986). That is, generation ef­ It may be pointed out that this is not the only inter­ fects may not be obtained with nonwords, because seman­ pretation open to the pattern of results reported by Me­ tic processing of nonwords is impossible. Elroy (1987). In particular, it can be suggested that the In McElroy's (1987) first experiment, subjects read or generation process in McElroy's experiment resulted in generated homograph targets in response to rhyme cues enhanced distinctiveness of the target, but that this en­ (e.g., luck-duck). Subsequently, the subjects were given hanced distinctiveness may not have been mediated by extralist cues that were related to either the dominant or greater semantic processing. This alternative interpreta­ the subordinate meaning of the homograph targets (e.g. , tion is described below. swan or avoid). On the assumption that in the absence It .is generally assumed that there are two stages in recall: an initial reconstruction process and a subsequent discrimination process (e.g., see Bahrick, 1970; Hunt & This research was supported by a University of New South Wales Elliott, 1980). In the reconstruction process, a set ofcan­ postdoctoral fellowship to the author. I am grateful to the editor, Alice didate items is generated on the basis of whatever retrieval Healy, and to Fergus Craik, Reed Hunt, and an anonymous reviewer, cues are available. The candidate items are then subjected for helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. Correspon­ dence should be addressed to Sachiko Kinoshita. Department of Psy­ to a discrimination process. For familiar items such as chology, UniversityofWollongong, P.O. Box 1144, Wollongong, NSW words, the discrimination process is expected to involve 2500, Australia. the context in which the item was encoded (i.e., from 563 Copyright 1989 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 564 KINOSHITA previousextraexperimental encodings). Given that in pre­ words may be more readily available, thus increasing the viousextraexperimental encounters, wordsare morelikely opportunity for generated words to be included in a can­ to have been read than generated, it seems reasonable didate set during recall. Experiment I was designed to to assume that the "generate" condition would form a test the possibility that generating a word according to smaller overlap with previous extraexperimental encod­ a nonsemantic rule resultsin greater availability of seman­ ings than the "read" condition. In this sense, the gener­ tic features of the word than does reading a word, using ation process may be said to enhance the distinctiveness an implicit test of memory. of the target. In an implicit memory test, noexplicitreferenceis made In McElroy's (1987) first experiment, recall was found to the specific episode in which the material has been to be better overall (i.e., for both read and generated tar­ learned (Schacter, 1987). For example, subjects may be gets) when recallcues were relatedto the dominantmean­ presented with a stem of a word (e.g., win-), and asked ings of target homographs than when they were related to write down the first word that comes to mind that con­ to the subordinate meanings. This effect of cue type may tains the stem (e.g., winter, window). Studieshave shown be suggested to have its locus in the reconstruction that implicit tests are sensitive to a recent encounter with process: that is, a target is more likely to be included in the stimulusmaterials: for example, a word is more likely the candidate set if the retrieval context matches the en­ to be produced in a word stem completion task if it has coding context (cf. Wickens, 1987). If in the absence of been presented recently. a biasing semanticcontext only the dominant meaning of Experiment I was madeto consistof a categoryinstance a homograph is encoded, the likelihood that a homograph generation task, in order to test the notion that generat­ target has been included in the set of candidate items ing a target according to a nonsemantic rule nevertheless should be greater when the recall cue is related to the involvesgreater semanticprocessing. In sucha task, sub­ dominant meaning than when it is related to the sub­ jects are presented with category names (e.g.,fumiture), ordinate meaning of the target. In addition, if generation and they are asked to produce instances of the category enhances distinctiveness of the target, as stated earlier, (e.g., chair). In a previous study that included this task this information can be used to facilitate the discrimina­ (Graf, Shimamura, & Squire, 1985), subjects (both am­ tion process. It is to be expected, therefore, that a gener­ nesicand normal) were found to be more likelyto respond ation effect should be observed when recall cues are with words that had been semantically processed earlier, related to the dominant meaning of the homograph tar­ relative to words that had not been presented (the sub­ gets. However, when recall cues are related to the sub­ jects rated how much they liked each word). This find­ ordinate meaning, the likelihood of targets being included ing may be taken to indicate that the category instance in the set of candidate items should be low. This should generation task is sensitive to semantic processing: be­ preempt the opportunity for distinctiveness to exert its ef­ cause the semantic features of words are more readily fect, and therefore little generation effect should be ex­ available whenthe wordshavejust been processed seman­ pected in this case. It can be seen that the interaction be­ tically, these words should be more likely to be produced tween the effects of generation and cue type reported by in response to category names. From this, it may be ex­ McElroy does not have to be interpreted in terms of post­ pected that if generated words receive greater semantic generation semantic processing. processing than read words, then generated words will The aim in the present study was to investigate the lo­ be more likely to be produced in the category instance cus of the memory advantage for words that are gener­ generation task. ated accordingto a nonsemantic rule, as opposedto words that are presented intact. The initial aim was to test Method whether the memory advantage for generated words is Subjects. Thirty introductory psychology students at the Univer­ due to a greater semantic processing, as suggested by sity of New South Wales participated in Experiment I, in return McElroy (1987). Experiment I was conducted to test for course credits. Half of the subjects were tested for recall, and the other half were tested in the category instance generation task. the possibility that generating words according to a non­ Materials.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Generation Effect
    GENERATION EFFECT Definition and Background Learners are more likely to retain information when asked to produce (generate) an answer, compared to having that same information provided. (Slameka & Graf, 1978). However, students are unlikely to engage in generative learning on their own (King, 1992; Wittrock, 1989); they need to be prompted and guided to do so through providing learning activities that are consistent with generative learning (see Bertsch & Pesta, 2014) for a review. Generating answers increases the likelihood a learner will recall or recognize information later (Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott, & McDaniel, 2007; McNamara & Healy, 1995, 2000). When compared to passive activities such as reading, generative activities encourage learners to use methods during learning (or encoding) that can be evoked during retrieval of the learned information (McNamara & Healy, 2000). The learning benefits of actively constructing knowledge have been noted in several areas, including mathematics (Lawson & Chinnappan, 1994; McNamara & Healy, 2000; Pesta, Sanders, & Murphy, 1999), reading comprehension (Doctorow, Wittrock, & Marks, 1978; Wittrock, 1990), and trivia questions (deWinstanley, 1995). Generation activities can vary in form, resulting in differing levels of cognitive processing: • Surface processing: o Rearranging letters or filling in missing letters in a word o Recognition tests • Deep processing: o Relating two concepts to one another o Creating a hierarchy of relationships between items o Creating and answering questions on the material o Summarizing a reading passage Self-questioning during a lecture is somewhat more beneficial than generating summaries where learners use their own words to connect their prior knowledge to the material they are learning (King, 1992). Both strategies, however, are more beneficial than more passive strategies such as taking notes during lecture and reviewing them for a test.
    [Show full text]
  • Bout My Generation: the Effects of Generation on Encoding, Recall, and Metamemory
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-08-27 Learnin' 'bout my generation: The effects of generation on encoding, recall, and metamemory Burnett, Andrea Burnett, A. (2013). Learnin' 'bout my generation: The effects of generation on encoding, recall, and metamemory (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26739 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/887 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Learnin’ ‘bout my generation: The effects of generation on encoding, recall, and metamemory by Andrea Nicole Burnett A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY CALGARY, ALBERTA AUGUST, 2013 © Andrea Nicole Burnett 2013 ii Abstract My dissertation examined how encoding strategies, recall, and metamemory shift across two study-test experiences. Differential recall of generate targets and read targets on Test 1 led participants to develop an improved encoding strategy for their more poorly recalled target type, thus eliminating differential recall on Test 2 (Experiment 1-3). However, recall also improved across tests for groups that were not tested on both target types on Test 1 (Experiment 2), and for groups that studied and recalled only one target type (Experiment 1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Reminding
    Mem Cogn (2012) 40:693–702 DOI 10.3758/s13421-012-0182-8 The next generation: the value of reminding Colin M. MacLeod & Molly M. Pottruff & Noah D. Forrin & Michael E. J. Masson Published online: 31 January 2012 # Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2012 Abstract In two experiments, we investigated the influence The generation effect, introduced by Slamecka and Graf of repeated processing in the context of the generation (1978), is one of the best-known encoding manipulations. effect. In both experiments, participants studied words once Simply put, it refers to the benefit on a later memory test of or twice. Once-studied words either were read or were producing an item from a cue at study, without seeing the generated from a definition. Twice-studied words were read entire item, as opposed to simply seeing the complete item both times, generated both times, or read once and generated at study. Typically, this phenomenon has involved generat- once. Free recall was best (in order of decreasing perfor- ing a word from a cue such as a definition or an antonym, in mance) after generating twice, after generating plus reading, contrast to simply reading the word. The literature contains and finally after generating once; any generation was better well over 200 studies exploring the generation effect, not than purely reading. Recognition showed a similar pattern, taking into account the considerably greater number that except that the benefit of generating twice was not as strik- have just used generation as a trustworthy encoding task. ing as in recall and that reading plus generating was just as Not surprisingly, the original Slamecka and Graf article is a effective as generating twice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Production Effect and the Generation Effect Improve Memory in Picture Naming
    Memory ISSN: 0965-8211 (Print) 1464-0686 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20 The production effect and the generation effect improve memory in picture naming Eirini Zormpa, Laurel E. Brehm, Renske S. Hoedemaker & Antje S. Meyer To cite this article: Eirini Zormpa, Laurel E. Brehm, Renske S. Hoedemaker & Antje S. Meyer (2018): The production effect and the generation effect improve memory in picture naming, Memory, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2018.1510966 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1510966 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 24 Aug 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20 MEMORY https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1510966 The production effect and the generation effect improve memory in picture naming Eirini Zormpa a, Laurel E. Brehma, Renske S. Hoedemakera and Antje S. Meyera,b aPsychology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; bDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The production effect (better memory for words read aloud than words read silently) and the Received 29 March 2018 picture superiority effect (better memory for pictures than words) both improve item Accepted 7 August 2018 memory in a picture naming task (Fawcett, J. M., Quinlan, C. K., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Interplay KEYWORDS of the production and picture superiority effects: A signal detection analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning and Memory Strategy Demonstrations for the Psychology
    LEARNING & MEMORY 1 Learning and Memory Strategy Demonstrations for the Psychology Classroom Jennifer A. McCabe Goucher College 2013 Instructional Resource Award recipient Author contact information: Jennifer A. McCabe Department of Psychology Goucher College 1021 Dulaney Valley Road Baltimore, MD 21204 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 410-337-6558 Copyright 2014 by Jennifer A. McCabe. All rights reserved. You may reproduce multiple copies of this material for your own personal use, including use in your classes and/or sharing with individual colleagues as long as the author’s name and institution and the Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology heading or other identifying information appear on the copied document. No other permission is implied or granted to print, copy, reproduce, or distribute additional copies of this material. Anyone who wishes to produce copies for purposes other than those specified above must obtain the permission of the author. LEARNING & MEMORY 2 Overview This 38-page document contains an introduction to the resource, background information on learning and memory strategies, a summary of research on undergraduate student metacognition with regard to these strategies, and a collection of classroom demonstrations that allows students to experience real-time the effectiveness of specific learning and memory strategies. References are included at the end of the document. Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 3 II. Background Information on Strategies and Metacognition 4 III. Classroom Demonstrations of Learning and Memory Strategies 5 A. Deep Processing 6 B. Self-Reference Effect 10 C. Spacing Effect 12 D. Testing Effect 16 E. Imagery 17 F. Chunking 22 G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Generation Effect: a Reflection of Cognitive Effort?
    Bulletin ofthe Psychonomic Society 1989, 27 (6), 541-544 The generation effect: A reflection of cognitive effort? PAULA T. HERTEL Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas In incidental learning tasks, subjects generated words from anagrams or incomplete sentences, verified that the words solved the anagrams or fit in the sentences, or evaluated which rule had been used to construct the word from the anagram or sentence. Latencies in responding to a tone during these trials were used as a measure of cognitive effort. The results indicated that, in com­ parison to verification, the relatively effortless generation of words benefited memory, but the effortful decisions about the rules did not. Clearly, cognitive effort does not always announce better memory. In the early 1980s, the literature on memory processes effort and on subsequent recall were compared in four had begun to promise that thinking hard would payoff different contexts. in better memory. Materials encountered in more difficult In the orientation phase of the experiment, anagrams tasks are remembered better than those in easier tasks (Ey­ and incomplete sentences were provided as contexts for senck & Eysenck, 1979; Griffith, 1976; Jacoby, Craik, decision making. The difficulty of solving the anagrams & Begg, 1979; Johnston & Uhl, 1976; Krinsky & Nel­ and completing the sentences was varied (easy vs. son, 1981; Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979; difficult) to constitute the four contextual conditions for Walker, Jones, & Mar, 1983). Although the promise oc­ each subject. Subjects in the generating condition viewed casionally was broken by counterexamples of this posi­ partial words (letters and blanks) and generated the com­ tive relationship between cognitive effort and memory (see plete words as solutions to the anagrams or the incom­ Britton, Westbrook, & Holdredge, 1978; Kellogg, 1984), plete sentences by using rules on which they had been it was tempting to view cognitive effort as a predictor of trained.
    [Show full text]
  • The Time-Course of the Generation Effect
    Memory & Cognition 1998,26 (1), /35-142 The time-course ofthe generation effect RODERICK W. SMITH and ALICEF. HEALY University ojColorado, Boulder, Colorado The generation effect, in which items generated by following some rule are remembered better than stimuli that are simply read, has been studied intensely over the past two decades. To date, how­ ever, researchers have largely ignored the temporal aspects of this effect. In the present research, we used a variable onset time for the presentation of the to-be-remembered material, thus providing the ability to determine at what point during processing the generation effect originates. The results in­ dicate that some benefit from generation attempts occurs even when subjects have only a few hun­ dred milliseconds in which to process the stimulus, but that more of the benefit occurs later. This finding suggests that the generation effect results from continuous or multiple discrete stages of in­ formation accrual or strengthening of memory traces over time, rather than from a single discrete increment upon final generation. The generation effect, first described by Slamecka and erations, but that recall was much lower for stimuli that Graf (1978), is a robust phenomenon in which recall or had only been read. Recognition tests showed intermedi­ recognition ofa stimulus list is enhanced ifa person must ate levels ofthe generation effect for unsolved antonyms generate the list by using some rule (e.g., rhyming, in this research. Slarnecka and Fevreiski interpreted these synonym-antonym relations, multiplication) as opposed findings as evidence that generation in this task involved to simply reading the list.
    [Show full text]
  • The Generation Effect: Support for a Two-Factor Theory Elliot Hirshman and Robert A
    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Learning, Memory, and Cognition O278-7393/88/SOO.75 1988, Vol. 14, No. 3, 484-494 The Generation Effect: Support for a Two-Factor Theory Elliot Hirshman and Robert A. Bjork University of California, Los Angeles When a response word bearing an orthographic, acoustic, or semantic relation to a stimulus word is generated rather than read, later recall is enhanced. Such "generation effects" have been attributed to the activation or strengthening of response-specific features in memory and to the activation or strengthening of the relation between a stimulus and response. This series of experiments yields evidence suggesting that both mechanisms are involved. The pattern of interactions in the size of the generation effect across type of recall test (cued or free) cannot be accommodated by any one-factor theory. The results of these experiments also suggest that within-subjects manipulations of read and generate study conditions inflate the apparent size of the effect of generation on a given pair by confounding such pair-specific effects with certain whole-list effects, such as differential attention and output interference. Research in the last 10 years has provided evidence that McElroy and Slamecka (1982), Nairne et al. (1985), Gardiner items subjects generate are better remembered than items and Rowley (1984), Gardiner and Hampton (1985), and they read. This phenomenon, dubbed the generation effect by Payne et al. (1986) have reported this finding. These findings Slamecka and Graf (1978), has proved to be remarkably have generally been interpreted to indicate that the activation robust.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanisms Underlying the Generation Effect
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Generation Effect and Memory Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r623773 Author Rosner, Zachary Alexander Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Generation Effect and Memory By Zachary Alexander Rosner A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Arthur P. Shimamura, Chair Professor William J. Jagust Professor Matthew P. Walker Fall 2012 The Generation Effect and Memory Copyright 2012 by Zachary Alexander Rosner Abstract The Generation Effect and Memory by Zachary Alexander Rosner Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology University of California, Berkeley Professor Arthur P. Shimamura, Chair Educators and psychologists have extolled the benefits of active learning techniques such as organizing material, self-explaining, learning through experience, and practicing retrieval for years. Underlying these strategies is the generation effect, an encoding phenomenon in which actively generating rather than passively learning information improves the subsequent retrieval of item information. Despite rather extensive analysis of the generation effect, the processes underlying it are not fully understood. Theories suggest that active generation increases cognitive effort, conceptual processing, item distinctiveness, and semantic processing. Further, generation has also been shown to have varying positive, negative and null effects for contextual features such as order, color, and spatial location, prompting tradeoff and transfer-appropriate processing accounts. This dissertation investigates the positive and negative effects of generation, the universality of the generation effect, and its underlying neural mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Effects of Generation on Encoding, Recall, and Metamemory Across Study-Test Experiences ⇑ A
    Journal of Memory and Language 75 (2014) 1–13 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Memory and Language journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jml Learnin’ ‘bout my generation? Evaluating the effects of generation on encoding, recall, and metamemory across study-test experiences ⇑ A. Nicole Burnett, Glen E. Bodner University of Calgary, Canada article info abstract Article history: We explored how learning during an initial study-test experience with text materials Received 31 August 2013 shapes future encoding, recall, and metamemory. Differential recall of targets from gener- revision received 21 March 2014 ate and read sentences on a fill-in-the-blank test led participants to shift their encoding Available online 15 May 2014 strategies such that differential recall was eliminated on a second study-test block using different materials. This shift was not contingent on experiencing a generation advantage Keywords: on the first test: recall also improved across tests when groups studied and recalled only Learning one target type, did not receive the initial test, or showed a null or negative generation Memory effect on the initial test. Strategy reports suggest that a sentence-target linking strategy Recall Metamemory increased across tests. Importantly, metamemory measures failed to reveal awareness of Generation differential performance for read and generate targets. Contrary to recent claims, then, Strategies our findings suggest that individuals can learn, perhaps even tacitly, to modify their study strategies based on an initial study experience. Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. Introduction people learn from using a study strategy and how that expe- rience modifies subsequent encoding and memory.
    [Show full text]
  • A Generation Effect Can Be Found During Naturalistic Learning
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1995,2 (4), 538-541 A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning PATRICIA A. DEWINSTANLEY Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio Recently, Carroll and Nelson (1993) presented research suggesting that general-information ques­ tions might represent a boundary condition for the generation effect. The present research focused on whether the generation effect did, in fact, generalize to such questions. In Experiment 1,when subjects read or generated the answers to general-information questions, a generation advantage was demon­ strated on a 47-hdelayed cued-recall test. However, when the Carroll and Nelson procedure was mim­ icked by requiring subjects to make an initial attempt to answer the questions, the generation advan­ tage was reduced such that it was no longer statistically significant. In Experiments 2and 3,the findings ofthefirst experiment generalized to a free-recall test. Thus, general-information questions do not rep­ resent a boundary condition for the generation effect. The generation effect occurs when an individual better more difficult by the provision ofmore or fewer ofthe let­ remembers information that he or she produces than infor­ ters in the anagram and the selection ofeasier or more dif­ mation provided by an external source (Jacoby, 1978; ficult questions. None ofthese manipulations made a dif­ Slamecka & Graf, 1978). The generation effect has proven ference in Carroll and Nelson's studies; read and generate to be remarkably robust across a number ofdifferent par­ performances were equivalent across all but one experi­ adigms and types ofmaterials (see, e.g., Begg & Snider's, ment. In the experiment that revealed a generation ad­ 1987, review of the empirical findings).
    [Show full text]
  • The Selective Displaced Rehearsal Hypothesis and Failure to Obtain the Generation Effect
    Bulletin ofthe Psychonomic Society /988, 26 (5), 4/3-4/5 The selective displaced rehearsal hypothesis and failure to obtain the generation effect JOLENA A. SUTHERLAND, DAMON KRUG, and JOHN A. GLOVER Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana Following a series of four experiments in which the generation effect was not obtained, a selec­ tive displaced rehearsal hypothesis, as described by Siamecka and Katsaiti (1987), was tested. The results of the experiments based on this hypothesis agreed with Siamecka and Katsaiti's predictions; that is, the generation effect appeared only in within-group designs that did not con­ trol subjects' displacement of rehearsal. The generation effectrefers to the phenomenon that self­ to observe the generation effect, we hypothesized that in generated verbal material is better remembered than later contrasts with older subjects, we would observe material that is merely read (Slamecka & Graf, 1978; differences in the strength of the effect. As will be seen Slamecka & Katsaiti, 1987). Since its delineation below, however, no generation effect was observed across (Slamecka & Graf, 1978), the generation effect has been a series of four experiments employing between-groups observed in subjects' memory for word pairs (Donald­ designs. These results seemed strongly counterintuitive, son & Bass, 1980; Jacoby, 1978; Slamecka & Graf, and led us to begin working with older children. Although 1978), words from anomalous sentences (Graf, 1980), in­ the data are not reported here, we also found no genera­ dividual words (Glisky & Rabinowitz, 1985), and tion effect in those experiments. meaningful sentences (Graf, 1980; Kane & Anderson, Finally, Slamecka andKatsaiti's (1987) paper shed the­ 1978). In addition, the generation effect has been observed oretical light on our problem.
    [Show full text]