Abstract
Three experiments, using the original encoding-specificity paradigm, investigated the role of study list structure in producing Higham and Tam’s (2005) generation failure effect. Generation failure occurs when cued recall performance for strong, extralist cues is worse than target production in a control group that is given no study list but is instead required merely to generate responses to the same test cues. In the present study, generation failure was replicated in Experiment 1, and Experiment 2 demonstrated that strong, extralist cues were more likely to elicit targets in pure generation groups when participants had studied a list of strong associates than when they had studied a list of weak ones. In Experiment 3, participants were released from generation failure when a study list of moderate associates was used and the cue-to-target associative strength was equated between the reinstated- and extralist-cue conditions. Together, these results suggest that generation failure is partly attributable to participants’ searching inappropriate domains that, though consistent with the study list structure, are unlikely to contain targets.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Higham, P. A. (2002). Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited.Memory & Cognition,30, 67–80.
Higham, P. A., &Brooks, L. R. (1997). Learning the experimenter’s design: Tacit sensitivity to the structure of memory lists.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A, 199–215.
Higham, P. A., &Gerrard, C. (2005). Not all errors are created equal: Metacognition and changing answers on multiple-choice tests.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 28–34.
Higham, P. A., &Tam, H. (2005). Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall.Journal of Memory & Language,52, 595–617.
Higham, P. A., &Vokey, J. R. (2004). Illusory recollection and dualprocess models of recognition memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 714–744.
Kelley, C. M., &Sahakyan, L. (2003). Memory, monitoring, and control in the attainment of memory accuracy.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 704–721.
Koriat, A. (2000). Control processes in remembering. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 333–346). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koriat, A., &Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy.Psychological Review,103, 490–517.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970).The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Light, L. L., &Carter-Sobell, L. (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 1–11.
Murphy, M. D., &Wallace, W. P. (1974). Encoding specificity: Semantic change between storage and retrieval cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,103, 768–774.
Nilsson, L.-G., &Gardiner, J. M. (1993). Identifying exceptions in a database of recognition failure studies from 1973 to 1992.Memory & Cognition,21, 397–410.
Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past.Memory & Cognition,21, 89–102.
Roediger, H. L., III, &Adelson, B. (1980). Semantic specificity in cued recall.Memory & Cognition,8, 65–74.
Roediger, H. L., III, &Payne, D. G. (1983). Superiority of free recall to cued recall with “strong” cues.Psychological Research,45, 275–286.
Santa, J. L., &Lamwers, L. L. (1974). Encoding specificity: Fact or artifact?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 412–423.
Schooler, J. W., Dougal, S., & Johnson, M. K. (1998, November).The self-discovery effect: When solving is confused with remembering. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Dallas.
Thomson, D. M., &Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,86, 255–262.
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness.Canadian Psychology,26, 1–12.
Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.
Vokey, J. R., & Higham, P. A. (2005).Components of recall: The semantic specificity effect and the monitoring of cued recall. Unpublished manuscript.
Wertheimer, M. (1959).Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row.
Zeelenberg, R. (2005). Encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory.Acta Psychologica,119, 107–201.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by a research grant from the British Academy. Portions of this research were presented at the 43rd and 45th annual meetings of the Psychonomic Society (November, 2002, Kansas City, MO, and November 2004, Minneapolis, respectively).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Higham, P.A., Tam, H. Release from generation failure: The role of study list structure. Memory & Cognition 34, 148–157 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193394
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193394