Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Five experiments are reported comparing memory for words that were
generated by the subjects themselves with the same words when they were
simply presented to be read. In all cases, performance in the generate condition
was superior to that in the read condition. This held for measures of cued
and uncued recognition, free and cued recall, and confidence ratings. The
phenomenon persisted across variations in encoding rules, timed or self-
paced presentation, presence or absence of test information, and between- or
within-subjects designs. The effect was specific to the response items under
recognition testing but not under cued recall. A number of potential ex-
planatory principles are considered, and their difficulties enumerated. It is
concluded that the generation effect is real and that it poses an interesting
interpretative problem.
592
THE GENERATION EFFECT 593
Erdelyi, Buschke, & Finkelstein, 1977; all the generation tasks in these experiments
Gardiner, Craik, & Bleasdale, 1973; John- was as follows: The subj ect was given a
son, Taylor, & Raye, 1977; Russo & Wisher, rule, a stimulus word, and the initial letter
1976; Schwartz & Walsh, 1974; Under- of the response. He produced a word that
wood & Schulz, 1960; pp. 273-278). Fur- began with the given letter and was related
ther, some of the procedures were ques- to the stimulus in the manner specified by
tionable, or else the results were, for one the rule. To illustrate, with the rule syno-
reason or another, not persuasive. For in- nym, the stimulus rapid, and the letter f the
stance, conventional paired-associate learn- word fast would be generated. This task
ing has been compared with the case in was readily handled by subjects and proved
which the subject freely provides his own to be quite successful in reliably eliciting the
responses (Abra, 1968; Underwood & desired responses, with errors of omission
Schulz, 1960, pp. 273-278). Such compari- and commission being acceptably low. In
sons are hopelessly confounded not only by the first experiment the effects of generation
idiosyncratic item selection but by the fact were assessed by recognition testing and
that the conventional group has the ad- confidence ratings, under five different rules.
vantage of continuous feedback on every
trial, whereas the generation group neces- Experiment 1
sarily does not. Again, Bobrow and Bower
(1969) reported superior paired-associate Method
recall with generated versus presented me-
Subjects and design. Twenty-four students of
diators, but a methodological refinement by introductory psychology at the University of To-
Schwartz and Walsh (1974) saw the ad- ronto served on a voluntary basis and were given
vantage completely disappear. Even the bonus credits toward their course grade for par-
most relevant of these articles suffer from ticipating. Subjects for all succeeding experiments
also came from this pool. The design was a 2 X
various disquieting complexities in their 2 X 5 factorial. The main variable (generate ver-
data. Thus, although Erdelyi et al. (1977) sus read) was between subjects, as was the presen-
found no superiority of covertly generated tation rate (timed versus self-paced). The varia-
words in the first two successive 5-min ble of rules was within subjects.
recall periods, they did observe a rise there- Materials. The input list consisted of 100 items,
each on a separate index card. For the generate
after. Also, Anderson et al. (1971, Experi- condition every card showed a stimulus word and
ment 2) obtained unaccountably different the initial letter of the response, for example,
outcomes between generate and read condi- rapid-f. For the read condition both words were
tions, depending upon the particular test present, for example, rapid-fast. There were 20
such items for each of five rules. The rules, with
orders used. an example of each, were the following: asso-
In order to obtain an unbiased measure ciate (lamp-light), category (ruby-diamond), op-
of the memorial consequences of generating posite (long-short), synonym (sea-ocean), and
versus being presented a word, it is criti- rhyme (save-cave). There were also several prac-
tice cards for each rule, which were used for in-
cally important to avoid any possibility of structional purposes at the start of the session to
confounding the effects of that variable with acquaint subjects with their task. The recogni-
idiosyncratic item-selection habits which tion test sheet was the same for all subjects and
might confer an unfair advantage upon the comprised 100 sets of three alternatives, each set
generation condition. This requirement could having a response target and two new words as
lures. The order of targets was random with re-
most cleanly be met by employing the iden- spect to their original input sequence, and the
tical words for both conditions. To bring lures of any set were not necessarily of the same
that about, the subject should not have free apparent rule class as the target. For example,
one set was peer, diamond, critical, with diamond
rein in generating but should be constrained the correct choice.
in such a way that his responses are pre- Procedure. Every subject was tested individu-
dictable beforehand and are the same as the ally. After receiving task instructions and relevant
practice cards, and just before the input phase,
words used for the presentation condition. subjects were told that recognition of the re-
The explicit form of constraint adopted for sponses would be tested at the end. Cards were
594 NORMAN J. SLAMECKA AND PETER GRAF
rhyme words. There was no hint of any are predictable, their presence nonetheless
interaction between generate versus read makes it possible to examine a particular
and rules (F < 1). This latter,finding re- question concerning the locus of the genera-
inforces the prior experiment's similar out- tion effect. It could be argued that the re-
come in that regard by showing once more quirements of the generation task are such
that the generation effect remained invariant as to induce a heightened level of attention
across all of the encoding relationships ex- to all aspects of the situation and, specifi-
amined. No other analyses were significant. cally, that the stimulus member must also
Scores on the discrimination task for cor- be attended more carefully than otherwise
rectly recognized items revealed an overall in order that it may effectively constrain se-
accuracy rate of .74 for proper allocation of lection of the response. In contrast, the
G and R responses. A test for the difference reading task might not entail more than a
between that figure and a population mean superficial processing of the display, in-
of .50 was highly significant, *(11) =6.00, cluding the stimulus, since the response is
SE = .04. Thus, recognition and correct provided in any case. If this surmise be cor-
allocation were related. As to the separate rect, then it follows that the benefits of the
probabilities of correctly identifying recog- supposedly more elaborate overall process-
nized items as G versus R in origin, the ing required for generation purposes would
data showed respective means of .70 and be reflected in superior memory on the stim-
.77, which did not differ, i ( l l ) = 1.17, SE ulus side as well as on the response side.
= .06. For items falsely recognized, the In that case the term generation effect
allocation of G and R responses revealed a would be a misnomer, since the stimuli are
.44 — .56 split, suggesting no particular tend- never generated in this paradigm. The third
ency toward bias or departure from equal experiment investigated this possibility.
use of the two categories.
The preceding data confirm the existence Experiment 3
of the generation effect and further extend
the range of circumstances under which it Method
appears. Insofar as elicitation of the effect
Subjects, design, and materials. Participants
is concerned, it is immaterial whether a sub- were 24 subjects, employed in a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial
ject does or does not experience the con- design. The generate versus read variable was
trasting conditions or does or does not have within subjects, the stimulus versus response rec-
information about an impending recognition ognition variable was between subjects, and a
test. In addition, it is clear that correct rec- third variable of informed versus uninformed of
a test was also between subjects. The input list
ognition of an item is associated with a consisted of 66 rhyme items, one per index card.
proper remembrance of the operations by There were also some practice cards to acquaint
which it was originally encoded. This, in the subjects with the generation and reading tasks.
general, is not particularly new or surpris- The necessity for restricting the materials to
rhymes arose because of the nature of the recog-
ing, since there are many interesting exam- nition test. It is not unlikely that stimulus recog-
ples of memory for ostensibly incidental nition can be mediated by backward access from
aspects of remembered episodes (e.g., Geis- recallable responses. Nor is it unlikely that gen-
elman & Bellezza, 1976), but it does help erated responses are more recallable than those
that have been read. Therefore, the generate con-
to strengthen the impression that generating dition might do better on a stimulus test only as
and reading produce distinctively different a consequence of its superior response accessi-
memorial cues. bility and not by virtue of any intrinsic recogni-
The next step in this research was to con- tion superiority. This potential confounding was
averted by always supplying the nontested mem-
sider the potential effects of the generation ber of the pair, thus equating its accessibility in
task upon the stimulus members. Although both generate and read conditions. For example,
the formal role of stimuli in this paradigm a stimulus recognition item appeared as wave,
save, rave-cave, and the corresponding response
is only that of providing a source of con- recognition item was save-wave, cave, rave. In
strain upon generation so that the responses order to have plausible lures for all 66 items,
THE GENERATION EFFECT 597
generate and read were .68 and ,61, respec- encoding rules examined, and it persisted
tively, which represents a difference more under multitrial learning requirements. Fur-
than 3 times greater than that produced ther, it was also invariant with respect to
with corresponding stimulus recalls of .53 between- or within-subjects experimental
and .51. No other interactions in this anal- arrangements, paced or unpaced presenta-
ysis were reliable, either. tions, and the presence or absence of in-
The above data replicate those of the structions about a subsequent memory test.
preceding experiment in demonstrating a Finally, it was shown that the effect was
generation effect, which persisted across all limited to the generated word only and did
trials of a multitrial recall learning task. not include the stimulus member of the
Further, they extend the generality of the display when testing was by cued recogni-
phenomenon to the cued-recall situation, tion, but that a similar selectivity could not
with materials that call for only a single be claimed when testing was by cued recall.
encoding rule throughout. The same list was All the preceding findings constitute a rea-
previously tested with recognition in Ex- sonable start toward a delineation of the
periment 3, and it is now quite evident that phenomenon and provide the necessary em-
the effect does not at all depend upon the pirical base from which more analytic ex-
use of a categorised, or multirule, list of periments can be launched in the future.
items. With respect to the specific question To the extent that the above data will
that gave impetus to this experiment, there meaningfully guide it, some theoretically
was no significant interaction favoring re- oriented discussion is probably appropriate
call of the response member as opposed to even at this early state of knowledge of the
the stimulus member of generation pairs. effect, in order to limn in a few of the ex-
This is clearly inconsistent with the pres- planatory possibilities as well as their at-
ence of such an interaction in Experiment tendant difficulties. Ideally, the phenomenon
3 and makes a straightforward answer to should be explained in the sense that it is
the question more difficult. Since the data seen to be simply another manifestation of
were visually suggestive of an interaction, some more general and overarching law of
it might be prudent to defer any conclusion behavior. The next question is whether any
on the matter until a replication using more well-founded principle is already available
subjects is available. to do the job. Accordingly, several familiar
notions, admittedly varying in their de-
grees of "well-foundedness," will now be
General Discussion considered.
That broad class of primarily quantita-
These five experiments have clearly es- tive formulations, which includes approaches
tablished the existence of the generation such as strength theory, frequency theory,
effect and have demonstrated it to hold the law of exercise, and perhaps the total-
across a fairly wide range of circumstances. time hypothesis—all of which share the
The phenomenon was readily produced, at predilection of attributing performance dif-
high levels of statistical reliability, even in ferences to the consequences of differ-
experiments employing only 12 subjects. On ing frequencies of situational occurrence
the basis of data gathered up to this point, (whether overt or covert) of events—can be
the following empirical conclusions may be
rejected with some confidence. The present
stated. When a word was generated in the procedures always equated the generate and
presence of a stimulus and an encoding
read conditions on the amount of overt re-
rule, it was better remembered than when
that same word was simply read under those sponding to each card at input, and the
conditions. The effect emerged with mea- pacing permitted no more covert rehearsal
sures of free and cued recall, cued and un- opportunities for the former group than for
cued recognition, as well as confidence rat- the latter. It could even be claimed that the
ings. It applied to the whole gamut of read condition allowed more time for re-
602 NORMAN J. SLAMECKA AND PETER GRAF
hearsal because the response was fully ac- fit fall only upon the response in Experi-
cessible the moment the card was seen. The ment 3 and not at all upon that other mem-
one place where this type of approach might ber which was also processed to a com-
make a contribution is in accounting for parable extent? Although that outcome is
the maintenance of generation superiority not easily reconciled with the principle
across trials, as in Experiments 4 and 5. under consideration, the question of stimu-
Since recalling an item increments its fre- lus memorability is still open because of the
quency and since the generation group findings of Experiment 5. Second, this view
started off with higher recall, its continued commits itself to one relevant testable pre-
superiority may only be reflecting that origi- diction concerning a rule-related effect upon
nal advantage. Albeit plausible, this is really memory. The rhyme rule should produce
tangential to the fundamental question of only a relatively shallow level of processing
how that advantage came about in the first as compared to the other rules, with a con-
place. It is difficult to see how any of these sequent attenuation or even absence of a
basically quantitative representations can generation effect in its case. Again, the data
provide an acceptable answer, especially do not bear this out. In none of these ex-
since the phenomenon has its basis in the periments was the rhyme rule ever sin-
qualitatively different activities of generat- gled out as having mediated a significantly
ing and reading. weaker effect, nor was an interaction ob-
Attention is next directed to a qualitative served between rules and generate versus
principle, namely, one that regards mem- read. The stability of the effect hardly in-
orial differences as attributable to variations vites a "levels" explanation. Another pre-
in the level or type of processing that items diction, although irrelevant to the central
undergo during input (Craik & Lockhart, question, calls for a main effect of rules,
1972; Hyde & Jenkins, 1969). The deeper with rhyme expected to show the lowest
or more elaborate the processing, the better overall memory performance. This was con-
the performance, all other things being firmed by the recognition data of Experi-
equal. Deeper processing is semantic in na- ments 1 and 2, but it still does not account
ture, whereas shallower processing concerns for the generation effect as such, which oc-
itself with acoustic, visual, or other "super- curred within all rules. Third, and most
ficial" features of the input. Attempts to speculative, it might be surmised that the
apply this potentially useful notion to the act of generation itself, regardless of what
present phenomenon encounter some prob- encoding rule applies, intrinsically entails a
lems of plausibility, as spelled out in the more profound processing level than does
following three examples. the virtually automatic act of reading. This
First, it can reasonably be maintained suggestion represents a novel and untested
that the constraining stimulus is at least as extension of the usual domain of situations
much a recipient of the processing taking embraced by the levels-of-processing litera-
place during the generation task as is the ture. In the absence of any independently
response. Without an adequately analyzed determined prior assessment of the process-
stimulus, the appropriate response could not ing depths characteristic of acts of genera-
be generated. Indeed, the response can be tion versus reading, such an explanation is
viewed as an overt end product of the rule- clearly post hoc and would first require
guided stimulus-analyzing effort. Since the some validating experiments to give it sub-
stimulus must necessarily be encoded to at stance. It remains to be determined whether
least the same depth as the response which an approach predicated upon qualitative
it elicits (how could a solely acoustically differences in encoding can successfully
processed stimulus activate a semantically deal with these problematic aspects of ap-
related response?), it follows that it should plication.
be as well remembered as the response. A third notion, which is really a subset of
Why, then, did the observed memorial bene- the more general principle considered above,
THE GENERATION EFFECT 603
focuses upon the paired-associates structure Murdock, 1971). However, evidence about
of the present materials. It would say that the influence of prior recall upon subsequent
the generation task forces a distinctive en- recognition is not unequivocal, with abso-
coding of the relation between stimulus and lutely no benefit found by Darley and Mur-
response, in contrast to the reading task, dock (1971) but positive effects reported in
which does not effectively demand any reg- some other cases (Broadbent & Broadbent,
istration of that relation. In spite of the 1975; Lockhart, 1975). In addition, there
consistent practice of informing both condi- is one feature of those studies that deviates
tions of the operative rule, it is still possi- sharply from the current procedure, namely,
ble that the read items did not encourage the fact that all items were presented by
use of that information (since it wasn't the experimenter, whereas the current para-
necessary), with the result that their en- digm contrasted externally originated events
codings lacked relational specificity. To the with entirely self-produced ones. Can the
extent that such distinctiveness is a factor memorability of an episode created by re-
in memory, the generation effect might be calling from semantic memory be legiti-
accommodated. This notion is evidently a mately equated with the dual episodes in-
salient one, since it occurred independently volved after recalling an event of external
to the authors and to an editorial reader. origin? Perhaps not (for example, Sla-
Experiments that test it are already under mecka, 1966). This type of explanation also
way and will be reported later. comes close to being only a restatement of
A fourth possible avenue of interpretation the very findings it seeks to explain, that
will be described, which appeals to a prin- is, that a generated word is better remem-
ciple that probably has the least established bered than one that was read because it
status but is of considerable interest none- was generated (recalled). One substantive
theless. It is, the idea that an initial recall test of this notion might be to determine
task confers beneficial consequences upon whether failure to generate a word (with
a subsequent memory test on the same ma- the correct response then provided) still
terial. As applied to the present paradigm, results in better memory than in the simple
it would stress that the act of generation is read condition. If so, it could not be at-
really an instance of recall, with the source tributed to a prior recall. This is reminiscent
being semantic memory. The subject neither of the Gardiner et al. (1973) experiment,
learns nor creates anything new, but simply which, however, lacked a read comparison
retrieves an existing item of information group.
from his repertoire of knowledge, guided These various interpretations of the gen-
by the cues of stimulus, encoding rule, and eration effect are not exhaustive but only
initial letter. The resulting overt response indicative of the variety of approaches pos-
constitutes the episode that is later tested sible. Others could also be advanced: Gen-
for retention. In contrast, the reading task eration requires more cognitive effort than
involves no recall-based episodes, since all does reading, and effort increases memora-
responses are given. Superior memory for bility; generation entails extensive tagging
generated items is then referred to the fact of nodes in the associative network, thus
that they enjoyed a prior recall (genera- increasing access routes; generation is re-
tion), which somehow served to increase sponse emission without copy prompts,
their subsequent memorability. At first which is the best training for a later test.
glance this also appears to be a promising All of these offerings are speculative at this
account, provided that its basic premise has time in the sense that the available data do
adequate support from the literature. It not suggest a rational preference among
seems clear enough that prior recall activity them. The present experiments were de-
improves subsequent recall when compared signed with the modest intent of delineating
either to reading the material (Gates, 1917) the outlines of this phenomenon and not of
or to engaging in a filler task (Darley & testing theoretical hypotheses concerning its
604 NORMAN J. SLAMECKA AND PETER GRAF
cause. It would be premature, therefore, to abstracted from a series of riddles. Memory &
press for any one of these representations Cognition, 1977, 5, 283-286.
Gardiner, J. M., Craik, F. I. M., Bleasdale, F. A.
until the appropriate analytic studies are Retrieval difficulty and subsequent recall. Mem-
carried out. ory &• Cognition, 1973, 1, 213-216.
Gates, A._ I. Recitation as a factor in memorizing.
Archives of Psychology, 1917, 6, No. 40.
References Geiselman, R. E., & Bellezza, F. S. Long-term
memory for speaker's voice and source location.
Abra, J. C. Acquistion and retention of consistent Memory 6- Cognition, 1976, 4, 483-489.
associative responses with varied meaningfulness Hopkins, R. H., & Edwards, R. E. Pronunciation
and similarity of stimuli. Journal of Verbal effects in recognition memory. Journal of Ver-
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 647-652. bal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11,
Anderson, R. C., Goldberg, S. R, & Hidde, J. L. 534-537.
Meaingful processing of sentences. Journal of Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. Differential effects
Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 395-399. of incidental tasks on the organization of recall
Bobrow, S. A., & Bower, G. H. Comprehension of a list of highly associated words. Journal of
and recall of sentences. Journal of Experimental Experimental Psychology, 1969, 82, 472-481.
Psychology, 1969, 80, 455-461. Johnson, M. K., Taylor, T. H., & Raye, C. L.
Broadbent, D. E., & Broadbent, M. H. P. The Fact and fantasy: The effects of internally gen-
recognition of words which cannot be recalled. erated events on the apparent frequency of ex-
In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Domic (Eds.), At- ternally generated events. Memory & Cogni-
tention and performance V. New York: Aca- tion, 1977, 5, 116-122.
demic Press, 1975. Lockhart, R. S. The facilitation of recognition by
recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Brown, J. An analysis of recognition and recall Behavior, 1975, 14, 253-258.
and of problems in their comparison. In J. Russo, J. E., & Wisher, R. A. Reprocessing as a
Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition. London: recognition cue. Memory ft Cognition, 1976, 4,
Wiley, 1976. 683-689.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. Levels of pro- Schwartz, M., & Walsh, M. F. Identical subject-
cessing: A framework for memory research. generated and experimenter-supplied mediators
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Be- in paired-associate learning. Journal of Experi-
havior, 1972, 11, 671-684. mental Psychology, 1974, 103, 878-884.
Darley, C. F., & Murdock, B. B., Jr. Effects of Slamecka, N. J. Differentiation versus unlearning
prior free recall testing on final recall and rec- of verbal associations. Journal of Experimental
ognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Psychology, 1966, 71, 822-828.
1971, 91, 66-73. Tulving, E. Intratrial and intertrial retention:
Davies, G. M., Milne, J. E., & Glennie, B. J. On Notes towards a theory of free recall verbal
the significance of "double encoding" for the su- learning. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 219-
perior recall of pictures to names. Quarterly 237.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 25, Tulving, E. Ecphoric processes in recall and rec-
413-423. ognition. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recog-
Dosher, B. A., & Russo, J. E. Memory for in- nition. London: Wiley, 1976.
ternally generated stimuli. Journal of Experi- Underwood, B. J., & Schulz, R. W. Meaningful-
mental Psychology: Human Learning and Mem- ness and verbal learning. Philadelphia: Lippin-
ory, 1976, 2, 633-640. cott, 1960.
Erdelyi, M., Buschke, H., & Finkelstein, S. Hy-
permnesia for Socratic stimuli: The growth of Received February 20, 1978
recall for an internally generated memory list Revision received June 9, 1978 •