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.