Memory & Cognition

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 945–955 | Cite as

Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader

  • Patricia Ann DeWinstanleyEmail author
  • Elizabeth Ligon Bjork


When presented with items that must be generated versus read at encoding, individuals typically remember better those items that they generated versus those that they only read. We examined whether— given the opportunity to experience such differential memorial consequences of generating versus reading—participants might change how they processed future to-be-read information. In a first set of two experiments, participants were able to profit from such an experience to the extent that a generation advantage was eliminated on subsequent memory tests of generated and read items. Two additional experiments demonstrated the critical nature of this experience in leading to improved processing of future to-be-read information and elimination of a generation advantage. We believe that these results relate to the characterization of the learner emerging from recent metacognitive research and have possible implications for how learners might be induced to process information more effectively.


Generation Effect Memory Test Critical Item Distractor Task Word Fragment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Begg, I., Vinski, E., Frankovich, L., &Holgate, B. (1991). Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading.Memory & Cognition,19, 487–497.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, A. S., &Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. M. Reder (Ed.),Implicit memory and metacognition: The 27th Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 309–338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., &Schwartz, B. L. (1997). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjork, E. L., &Bjork, R. A. (1996). Continuing influences of to-beforgotten information.Consciousness & Cognition,5, 176–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjork, R. A. (1972). Theoretical implications of directed forgetting. In A. W. Melton & E. Martin (Eds.),Coding processes in human memory. Washington, DC: Winston & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Bjork, R. A. (1989). Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 309–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.),Attention and performance XVII—Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brigham, M. C., &Pressley, M. (1988). Cognitive monitoring and strategy choice in younger and older adults.Psychology & Aging,3, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christina, J. F., &Bjork, R. A. (1991). Optimizing long-term retention and transfer. In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.),In the mind’s eye: Enhancing human performance (pp. 23–56). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crutcher, R. J., &Healy, A. F. (1989). Cognitive operations and the generation effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 669–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. deWinstanley, P. A. (1995). A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 538–541.Google Scholar
  12. deWinstanley, P. A., &Bjork, E. L. (1997). Processing instructions and the generation effect: A test of the multifactor transfer-appropriate processing theory.Memory,5, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. deWinstanley, P. A., Bjork, E. L., &Bjork, R. A. (1996). Generation effects and the lack thereof: The role of transfer-appropriate processing.Memory,4, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunlosky, J., &Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience.Psychology & Aging,15, 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunlosky, J., &Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur?Journal of Memory & Language,33, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardiner, J. M., &Arthurs, F. S. (1982). Encoding context and the generation effect in multitrial free-recall learning.Canadian Journal of Psychology,36, 527–531.Google Scholar
  17. Hirshman, E. L., &Bjork, R. A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacoby, L. L., Bjork, R. A., &Kelley, C. M. (1994). Illusions of comprehension, competence, and remembering. In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.),Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 57–81). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, H. (1994). Processes of successful intentional forgetting.Psychological Bulletin,116, 274–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koriat, A. (1998). Illusions of knowing: The link between knowledge and metaknowledge. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne (Eds.),Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions (pp. 16–34). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Lawson, M. J., &Chinnappan, M. (1994). Generative activity during geometry problem solving: Comparison of the performance of highachieving and low-achieving high school students.Cognition & Instruction,12, 61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Directed forgetting. In J. M. Golding & C.M. MacLeod (Eds.),Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 1–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Mazzoni, G., &Nelson, T. O. (1995). Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1263–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDaniel, M. A., Waddill, P. J., &Einstein, P. J. (1988). A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNamara, D. S., &Healy, A. F. (1995a). A generation advantage for multiplication skill training and nonword vocabulary acquisition. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne, Jr. (Eds.),Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. McNamara, D. S., &Healy, A. F. (1995b). A procedural explanation of the generation effect: The use of an operand retrieval strategy for multiplication and addition problems.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNamara, D. S., &Healy, A. F. (2000). A procedural explanation of the generation effect for simple and difficult multiplication problems and answers.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 652–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, J., &Shimamura, A. P. (1994).Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, T. O., &Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pesta, B. J., Sanders, R. E., &Murphy, M. D. (1999). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: What factors determine the generation effect for simple multiplication problems?Memory & Cognition,27, 106–115.Google Scholar
  33. Peynircioğlu, Z. F., &Mungan, E. (1993). Familiarity, relative distinctiveness, and the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,21, 367–374.Google Scholar
  34. Sahakyan, L., Delaney, P. F., &Kelley, C. M. (2004). Self-evaluation as a moderating factor of strategy change in directed forgetting benefits.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 131–136.Google Scholar
  35. Sahakyan, L., &Kelley, C. M. (2002). A contextual change account of the directed forgetting effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 1064–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt, R. A., &Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training.Psychological Science,3, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaughnessy, J. J. (1981). Memory monitoring accuracy and modification of rehearsal strategies.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, D., &Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 907–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension.Educational Psychologist,24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Ann DeWinstanley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth Ligon Bjork
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOberlin
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations