Relational information and memory for problem solutions

Donaldson, Wayne; Bass, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90488-0

Cited by 62 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several recent studies have demonstrated some of the boundary conditions for producing the generation effect (e.g., Donaldson & Bass, 1980;Gardiner & Hampton, 1985;Graf, 1980;McElroy & Slamecka, 1982;Nairne, Pusen, & Widner, 1985). Of particular relevance to the presentresearch is the finding that a generation effectdoes not occur for nonwords (McElroy & Slamecka, 1982;Nairne et al, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 61%

The generation effect: Further tests of the lexical activation hypothesis

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments compared recognition memory for word versus nonword responses when they had been either read or generated using a rhyme rule and either a word or nonword stimulus. That is, either the word shop or the nonword thop was generated from either the word chop or the nonwordphop. In Experiment 1, the lexicality ofthe stimulus and response terms was manipulated orthogonally between subjects; in Experiments 2 and 3, it was manipulated orthogonally within subjects. In Experiment 3, subjects also made a lexical (word-nonword) decision about each response term after it had been read or generated. In all three experiments, memory performance was better for generated than read responses. This generation effect occurred only ifthe response term was a word, regardless ofwhether the stimulus term was a word or a nonword. These results are discussed in terms ofthe roles that lexical memory and response unitization play in the generation effect.People are better able to recall or recognize words if they have previously produced or generated them than if they have merely read them. This so-called generation effect was first studied extensively by Slameckaand Graf (1978). In their generatecondition, subjects used a specified rule (e.g., antonym) and a stimulus item followed by a single letter (e.g., HOT-C __J to generate and say aloud the target responseitem (COLD);in their read condition, subjects also said aloudthe response item (COLD), but both the stimulus and response items were presented intact (i.e., HOT-COLD). Subsequent tests showedbetter memoryfor the response itemsfrom the generatepairs than from the read pairs. This generation effect occurs for a wide range of materials and study and testing con-

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 61%

The generation effect: Further tests of the lexical activation hypothesis

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research (Donaldson & Bass, 1980) suggested it is not due to any role played by the deleted letters and their access perse, or to any increased expenditure of generalized effort or attention to the deleted words. An explanation based on the type of processing induced by letter deletion seems most viable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Usually, the identification of a word is performed using fairly automatic or subconscious processing routines. If, however, these well-practiced lexical-identification routines are not successful, then additional, and perhaps more conscious, routines will need to be employed in identifying or generating the word (Donaldson & Bass, 1980). When such difficulties are encountered with words in a line of text, these routines would seem to include not only extensive analyses of each word, but also analyses of the relationships (semantic and syntactic) among words.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory

McDaniel

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The idea that some ways to read result in memory as good as that for generated items is not new. For example, Donaldson and Bass (1980) found no generation effect in recall of targets cued by contexts when subjects were explicitly told to attend to the relation between targets and the contexts studied with them. Ghatala (1981Ghatala ( , 1983 found similar results by using a sentence completion procedure, but the elimination of the effect occurred only when the sentence stems were highly predictive of their completions.…”

Section: Dispositional Effects Of Generationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many experiments, memorial benefits have been found when subjects generate items from fragments rather than read items in their complete forms. Does generation cause this difference, or are subjects disposed to adopt different strategies when generating as opposed to reading? If generating causes the difference, items processed in the same way apart from a generative stage should therefore benefit from that generative stage. Our experiments did result in benefits for generating as opposed to reading, but only when the readers processed the words poorly-by pronouncing them. When the readers processed the items well, by imagining them, generating was no better than reading. A new generation effect was found in metamemory. Subjects thought they would remember more generated items than read items; however, the act of making the prediction entailed meaningful processing, and the generated items were not actually remembered better than the read ones.

show abstract

Relational information and memory for problem solutions

Cited by 62 publications

References 12 publications

The generation effect: Further tests of the lexical activation hypothesis

The generation effect: Further tests of the lexical activation hypothesis

The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About