Mobilization of Cognitive Resources and the Generation Effect

The generation effect refers to the memory advantage of words that have been generated rather than read. Such a read-generate comparison confounds qualitative task differences and raises methodological problems. A revised methodology is proposed circumventing these problems in that the encoding task is held constant and all stimuli have to be generated, but the degree of generativeness (i.e. the amount of cueing) is varied. In Experiment 1, 1, the (refined version of the) generation effect is demonstrated in a within-subjects design; with increasing generation activity left to the subject, free recall performance increases. No effect is obtained for degree of target masking. The same finding is replicated and shown to be independent of self-paced study time when generative activity is manipulated between subjects (Experiment 2) or within subjects (Experiment 3). As all learning trials involve generation, encoding time is controlled statistically, and free recall is used as a measure of memory, this refined generation effect cannot be explained as an artifact of selective attention or elaboration. Rather, generative activity seems to increase the mobilization of cognitive resources. This motivational account is supported by Experiment 4 showing an enhanced generation effect for positive mood.

[1]  Peter Graf,et al.  Two consequences of generating: Increased inter- and intraword organization of sentences , 1980 .

[2]  K. Fiedler.  Mood-Dependent Selectivity in Social Cognition , 1990 .

[3]  K. Fiedler,et al.  What kind of mood influences what kind of memory: The role of arousal and information structure , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[4]  J. Edward Russo,et al.  Memory for internally generated stimuli. , 1976 .

[5]  Elizabeth E. Johns,et al.  The generation effect with nonwords. , 1988 .

[6]  B. Hayes-Roth.  Evolution of Cognitive Structures and Processes. , 1977 .

[7]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[8]  L. Manelis,et al.  Accessing integrated and nonintegrated propositional structures in memory , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[9]  J. Hampton,et al.  Semantic memory and the generation effect: Some tests of the lexical activation hypothesis. , 1985 .

[10]  J. Gardiner,et al.  The Generation Effect: Continuity between Generating and Reading , 1985 .

[11]  Alice F. Healy,et al.  Cognitive operations and the generation effect. , 1989 .

[12]  I. Begg,et al.  The generation effect: Evidence for generalized inhibition. , 1987 .

[13]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[14]  Norman J. Slamucka,et al.  The generation effect when generation fails , 1983 .

[15]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal. , 1987 .

[16]  E. Velten.  A laboratory task for induction of mood states. , 1968, Behaviour research and therapy.

[17]  L. A. McElroy,et al.  Memorial consequences of generating nonwords: Implications for semantic-memory interpretations of the generation effect , 1982 .

[18]  J M Gardiner,et al.  A generation effect with numbers rather than words , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  The Generation Effect: Support for a Two-Factor Theory , 1988 .

[20]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .