DOCSLIB.ORG

The Generation Effect with Homographs: Evidence for Postgeneration Processing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Generation Effect with Homographs: Evidence for Postgeneration Processing Memory & Cognition 1987. 15 (2). 148-153 The generation effect with homographs: Evidence for postgeneration processing LORI A. McELROY University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada The generation effect is the phenomenon in which words are remembered better when gener­ ated than when read. These experiments test the possibility that at least one consequence ofgener­ ating is enhanced semantic processing. Homographs were used as targets, presented with rhymes in Experiment 1 so as not to bias meaning, and with synonyms in Experiment 2 to bias one mean­ ing ofeach homograph. In both experiments, extralist synonym cues were provided at recall. In Experiment 1 a generation effect was obtained when the retrieval cues biased the dominant mean­ ing ofthe homograph (determined from free association norms), whereas in Experiment 2 a gener­ ation effect was found when the retrieval cues biased the same meaning that was biased during study. In neither experiment was a generation effect obtained with retrieval cues that biased the other meaning ofeach homograph. These results indicate that the generation effect is depen­ dent upon the compatibility of the semantic processing conducted at study and test. Since it is impossible to process the meaning of a homograph when generating it from a rhyme cue, the meaning of the homograph could only have been processed after the word had been generated. The finding in Experiment 1 that a generation effect was obtained with rhymes when semantic retrieval cues were provided demonstrates that the enhancement properties associated with gener­ ation are not restricted to the information used to guide the generation process. This finding also indicates that one locus of the generation effect is in the processing that occurs after the word has been generated. The generation effect refers to the memory advantage words, it has not been found with nonsense words on such resulting from active participation in the learning phase standard retention tests as free recall and word recogni­ (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). In the typical generation task, tion (Gardiner & Hampton, 1985; McElroy & Slamecka, the response member of a paired associate is generated 1982; Nairne, Pusen, & Widner, 1985; Payne, Neely, using a semantic, phonemic, or structural rule relating & Bums, 1986). A generation effect has been obtained the response word to the study cue. Performance for the with nonsense words only on very specialized tests (Nairne generate condition is compared with that ofthe more pas­ & Widner, in press). For these experiments, the words sive condition in which the same material is only read. and nonsense words were generated through the transpo­ Superior retention of generated words has been demon­ sition oftwo underlined letters in a cue. For instance, the strated on free recall, intralist-<:ued recall, and item recog­ nonword PERZIK would be produced from the cue nition tests (Donaldson & Bass, 1980; Gardiner & Ar­ ZERrIK, and the word HEAYEN would be produced thurs, 1982; Gardiner & Hampton, 1985; Jacoby, 1978; from the cue YEAHEN. A generation effect was ob­ Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Similar results have been ob­ tained for both words and nonwords on a test in which tained when an entire sentence is constructed by arrang­ subjects had to choose PERZIK from PERZIK and ing a list ofwords according to a specified grammar (Graf, fERZIK and HEAYEN from HEAYEN and HEAVEN, 1980, 1982) and when words are generated from word and on a test in which the words and nonwords had to fragments rather than from associates (Glisky & be generated at test. On the other hand, a generation ef­ Rabinowitz, 1985). fect emerged with words, but not with nonsense words, Although the effect is robust, it has been shown to de­ on a standard item recognition test. pend upon the type of materials studied. While the In a similar vein, Glisky and Rabinowitz (1985) recently phenomenon is readily obtained with relatively common demonstrated that the magnitude ofthe generation effect obtained with words can be enhanced by having the words This research was supported by National Science and Engineering generated at test, rather than read. They concluded that Research Council ofCanada Operating Grant A7663 to N. J. Slarnecka. this enhancement is due to the repetition of the specific and by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship to the author. Experiment 2 was part of a thesis submitted to the University of Toronto in partial operations used to generate the word. This explanation fulfillment ofthe requirements for the master's degree. The comments could also be applied to Nairne and Widner's (in press) on earlier drafts ofthis manuscript by F. I. M. Craik, Ron Fisher, Jim nonword data, since a generation effect emerged with non­ Nairne, Barry Stein, and especially by Norman J. Slamecka are grate­ words only when the encoding operations were reinstated fully acknowledged. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Lori McElory, Department ofPsychology, University ofToronto, Toronto, at test. However, as Glisky and Rabinowitz (1985) sug­ Ontario, Canada M5S lAI. gested, a repetition-of-operations view cannot provide a Copyright 1987 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 148 THE GENERATION EFFECT WITH HOMOGRAPHS 149 complete explanation ofthe generation effect, since a sub­ Lexical decision research has shown that when the en­ stantial generation effect is readily obtained with words coding context is neutral with respect to meaning, only even when the test does not reinstate the generation oper­ the dominant meaning of the homograph is encoded ations. (Simpson, 1981). Therefore, since rhyme cues do not bias What, then, gives generated words an advantage that any meaning, only the dominant sense ofthe homograph generated nonwords do not have? One difference between should be encoded, to whatever extent semantic process­ words and nonsense words is that words have meaning, ing occurs at all. Because it is impossible to know the whereas nonsense words do not, at least not to the extent meaning of the homograph until after it has been gener­ that words do. The fact that words are amenable to seman­ ated, if semantic processing is to occur for generated tic processing could explain why the generation effect oc­ homographs, it must occur in the postgeneration phase. curs with words even on tests in which the generation If generation does not induce postgeneration semantic operations are not reinstated. The experiments reported processing, then the dominant meaning ofthe homograph here examine the involvement of semantic encoding in should be encoded to the same extent for read and gener­ the generation effect. ate items, and no generation effect should be found regard­ Since a generation effect can be obtained with phonemic less of which meaning is biased at test. If, on the other and structural rules (Gardiner & Arthurs, 1982; Gardiner hand, generation leads to greater semantic processing than & Hampton, 1985; Glisky & Rabinowitz, 1985; Nairne does reading, then a generation effect should be obtained et al., 1985; Slamecka & Graf, 1978), it is clear that the at least with cues biasing the dominant meaning of the generation task itself need not involve semantic process­ homograph. If this enhanced semantic processing is re­ ing. It is always possible, however, that semantic process­ stricted to the dominant meaning, then the effect should ing occurs after the item has been generated. Perhaps be obtained only when the retrieval cue biases the generating, because of the active involvement required dominant meaning. Ifthe semantic processing that gener­ ofthe subject, induces more elaboration ofthe generated ate items receive causes all meanings of the homograph word than does reading, when such elaboration is possi­ to be activated, then a generation effect should be obtained ble. This notion was tested by Rabinowitz and Craik with both types of semantic cues. (1986), who reasoned that ifa generation effect enhances the encoding of semantic information even for rhymes, Method then a generation effect should be obtained with seman­ Subjects and Design. Twelve students from a third-year labora­ tic retrieval cues. They failed to find a generation effect tory course at the University ofToronto participated as part oftheir with rhymes when semantic associates were provided as course requirements. A within-subjects design was used with task retrieval cues, although they did obtain a generation ef­ (read or generate), meaning biased at retrieval (dominant or non­ fect with rhyme cues. They concluded that generating only dominant), and type of homograph (balanced or polarized) as the three factors. enhances the information that was used to guide the gener­ Materials. Forty-six cue-target pairs were used in the input list, ation process. However, there is an alternate interpreta­ including 14 nonhomographs to disguise the homographic nature tion for their results. Since most common words gener­ ofthe critical targets. The 32 homophonic homographs were selected ally have more than one semantic interpretation, from word association norms (Cramer, 1970; Kausler & Kollasch, Rabinowitz and Craik may have failed to obtain a gener­ 1970; Nelson, McEvoy, Walling, & Wheeler, 1980) that tabulated ation effect with semantic cues simply because the seman­ the probability of each meaning being activated when the homo­ tic cues they used did not bias the same interpretation as graph was presented without context. The meaning with a greater word association probability was classified as dominant. The homo­ was encoded during study. Experiment 1 was designed graphs were subdivided into two groups, polarized or balanced, as a further test ofwhether semantic processing could oc­ on the basis of the relative frequency of their two meanings. For cur after the word has been generated. polarized homographs, the word association probability for the dominant meaning was greater than .60, whereas the association EXPERIMENT 1 probability for the nondominant meaning was less than .30. For balanced homographs, the two meanings were more equally prob­ To prevent semantic processing during generation, able, with both word association probabilities falling between .60 homographs were read or generated as rhymes.
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]