The generation effect: A meta-analytic review

Abstract

Thegeneration effect refers to the finding that subjects who generate information (e.g., produce synonyms) remember the information better than they do material that they simply read. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize 445 effect sizes over 86 studies, thereby assessing the magnitude and 11 potential moderators of the generation effect. The size of the generation effect across the 86 studies was .40—a benefit of almost half a standard deviation of generation over reading. The variability of the effect size due to moderator type was substantial, and we attempted to use this information to clarify several theories that have been proposed to explain the generation effect.

References

  1. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Begg, I., Vinski, E., Frankovich, L., &Holgate, B. (1991). Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading.Memory & Cognition,19, 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown, A. S., &Mitchell, D. B. (1991). Age differences in retrieval consistency and response dominance.Journal of Gerontology,46, P332-P339.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, J. C., Niinikoski, J., &Duke, L. W. (1993). Generation effect and frequency judgment in young and elderly adults.Experimental Aging Research,19, 147–164.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Burns, D. J. (1992). The consequences of generation.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Burns, D. J. (1996). The item-order distinction and the generation effect: The importance of order information in long-term memory.American Journal of Psychology,109, 567–580.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Burns, D. J., Curti, E. T., &Lavin, J. C. (1993). The effects of generation on item and order retention in immediate and delayed recall.Memory & Cognition,21, 846–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Buyer, L. S., &Dominowski, R. L. (1989). Retention of solutions: It is better to give than to receive.American Journal of Psychology,102, 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Carroll, M., &Nelson, T. O. (1993). Failure to obtain a generation effect during naturalistic learning.Memory & Cognition,21, 361–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Chechile, R. A., &Soraci, S. A., Jr. (1999). Evidence for a multipleprocess account of the generation effect.Memory,7, 483–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., &Willham, C. F. (1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,48, 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Clark, S. E. (1995). The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory.Memory & Cognition,23, 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cone, J. D., &Foster, S. L. (1991). Training in measurement: Always the bridesmaid.American Psychologist,46, 653–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Crutcher, R. J., &Healy, A. F. (1989). Cognitive operations and the generation effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 669–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)deWinstanley, P. A., &Bjork, E. L. (1997). Processing instructions and the generation effect: A test of the multifactor transferappropriate processing theory.Memory,5, 401–421.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)deWinstanley, P. A., &Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader.Memory & Cognition,32, 945–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Dick, M. B., Kean, M.-L., &Sands, D. (1989). Memory for internally generated words in Alzheimer-type dementia: Breakdown in encoding and semantic memory.Brain & Cognition,9, 88–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Donaldson, W., &Bass, M. (1980). Relational information and memory for problem solutions.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Fiedler, K., Lachnit, H., Fay, D., &Krug, C. (1992). Mobilization of cognitive resources and the generation effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,45A, 149–171.

    Google Scholar 

  19. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Flory, P., &Pring, L. (1995). The effects of data-driven and conceptually driven generation of study items on direct and indirect measures of memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A, 153–165.

    Google Scholar 

  20. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Generation and priming effects in word-fragment completion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 495–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M. (1989). A generation effect in memory without awareness.British Journal of Psychology,80, 163–168.

    Google Scholar 

  22. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M., &Arthurs, F. S. (1982). Encoding context and the generating effect in multitrial free-recall learning.Canadian Journal of Psychology,36, 527–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M., Dawson, A. J., &Sutton, E. A. (1989). Specificity and generality of enhanced priming effects for self-generated study items.American Journal of Psychology,102, 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M., Gregg, V. H., &Hampton, J. A. (1988). Word frequency and generation effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 687–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M., &Hampton, J. A. (1985). Semantic memory and the generation effect: Some tests of the lexical activation hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 732–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M., &Hampton, J. A. (1988). Item-specific processing and the generation effect: Support for a distinctiveness account.American Journal of Psychology,101, 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Gardiner, J. M., &Rowley, J. M. C. (1984). A generation effect with numbers rather than words.Memory & Cognition,12, 443–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Ghatala, E. S. (1983). When does internal generation facilitate memory for sentences?American Journal of Psychology,96, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Glass, G. V. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research.Review of Research in Education,5, 351–379.

    Google Scholar 

  30. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Glisky, E. L., &Rabinowitz, J. C. (1985). Enhancing the generation effect through repetition of operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Graf, P. (1981). Reading and generating normal and transformed sentences.Canadian Journal of Psychology,35, 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Greenwald, A. G., &Johnson, M. M. (1989). The generation effect extended: Memory enhancement for generation cues.Memory & Cognition,17, 673–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Grosofsky, A., Payne, D. G., &Campbell, K. D. (1994). Does the generation effect depend upon selective displaced rehearsal?American Journal of Psychology,107, 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Hara, K., Neumann, E., &Tajika, H. (1989). Effects of word versus nonword rehearsal frequency on the generation effect.Psychologia,32, 230–235.

    Google Scholar 

  35. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Hertel, P. T. (1989). The generation effect: A reflection of cognitive effort?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 541–544.

    Google Scholar 

  36. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Hirshman, E., &Bjork, R. A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 484–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hunter, J. E., &Schmidt, F. L. (1990).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  38. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 485–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Java, R. I. (1994). States of awareness following word stem completion.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,6, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Java, R. I. (1996). Effects of age on state of awareness following implicit and explicit word-association tasks.Psychology & Aging,11, 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Johns, E. E., &Swanson, L. G. (1988). The generation effect with nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Foley, H. J., &Foley, M. A. (1981). Cognitive operations and decision bias in reality monitoring.American Journal of Psychology,94, 37–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Johnson, M. M., Schmitt, F. A., &Pietrukowicz, M. (1989). The memory advantages of the generation effect: Age and process differences.Journal of Gerontology,44, P91-P94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Kane, J. H., &Anderson, R. C. (1978). Depth of processing and interference effects in the learning and remembering of sentences.Journal of Educational Psychology,70, 626–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Kinoshita, S. (1989). Generation enhances semantic processing? The role of distinctiveness in the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,17, 563–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Liu, I.-M., &Lee, Y.-S. (1990). Memorial consequences of generating words and non-words.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42A, 255–278.

    Google Scholar 

  48. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Lutz, J., Briggs, A., &Cain, K. (2003). An examination of the value of the generation effect for learning new material.Journal of General Psychology,130, 171–188.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)MacLeod, C. M., &Daniels, K. A. (2000). Direct versus indirect tests of memory: Directed forgetting meets the generation effect.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 354–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McClelland, A. G., &Pring, L. (1991). An investigation of crossmodality effects in implicit and explicit memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  51. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McDaniel, M. A., Riegler, G. L., &Waddill, P. J. (1990). Generation effects in free recall: Further support for a three-factor theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 789–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McDaniel, M. A., Waddill, P. J., &Einstein, G. O. (1988). A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McElroy, L. A. (1987). The generation effect with homographs: Evidence for postgeneration processing.Memory & Cognition,15, 148–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McElroy, L. A., &Slamecka, N. J. (1982). Memorial consequences of generating nonwords: Implications for semantic-memory interpre tations of the generation effect.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McFarland, C. E., Jr.,Frey, T. J., &Rhodes, D. D. (1980). Retrieval of internally versus externally generated words in episodic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McFarland, C. E., Jr.,Warren, L. R., &Crockard, J. (1985). Memory for self-generated stimuli in young and old adults.Journal of Gerontology,40, 205–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)McNamara, D. S., &Healy, A. F. (1995). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mitchell, D. B., Hunt, R. R., &Schmitt, F. A. (1986). The generation effect and reality monitoring: Evidence from dementia and normal aging.Journal of Gerontology,41, 79–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,16, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Mulligan, N. W. (2001). Generation and hypermnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Mulligan, N. W. (2002a). The emergent generation effect and hypermnesia: Influences of semantic and nonsemantic generation tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Mulligan, N. W. (2002b). The generation effect: Dissociating enhanced item memory and disrupted order memory.Memory & Cognition,30, 850–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Mulligan, N. W., &Duke, M. D. (2002). Positive and negative generation effects, hypermnesia, and total recall time.Memory & Cognition,30, 1044–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Nairne, J. S., Pusen, C., &Widner, R. L., Jr. (1985). Representation in the mental lexicon: Implications for theories of the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,13, 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Nairne, J. S., Riegler, G. L., &Serra, M. (1991). Dissociative effects of generation on item and order retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 702–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Nairne, J. S., &Widner, R. L., Jr. (1987). Generation effects with nonwords: The role of test appropriateness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Nairne, J. S., &Widner, R. L., Jr. (1988). Familiarity and lexicality as determinants of the generation effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 694–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Nicolas, S., &Tardieu, H. (1996). The generation effect in a wordstem completion task: The influence of conceptual processes.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,8, 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Olofsson, U., &Nilsson, L.-G. (1992). The generation effect in primed word-fragment completion reexamined.Psychological Research,54, 103–109.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. O’Neill, W., Roy, L., &Tremblay, R. (1993). A translation-based generation effect in bilingual recall and recognition.Memory & Cognition,21, 488–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Payne, D. G., Neely, J. H., &Burns, D. J. (1986). The generation effect: Further tests of the lexical activation hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,14, 246–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Pesta, B. J., Sanders, R. E., &Nemec, R. J. (1996). Older adults’ strategic superiority with mental multiplication: A generation effect assessment.Experimental Aging Research,22, 155–169.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Peynircioĝlu, Z. F. (1989). The generation effect with pictures and nonsense figures.Acta Psychologica,70, 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Peynircioĝlu, Z. F., &Mungan, E. (1993). Familiarity, relative distinctiveness, and the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,21, 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Pring, L. (1988). The “reverse-generation” effect: A comparison of memory performance between blind and sighted children.British Journal of Psychology,79, 387–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Rabinowitz, J. C. (1989). Judgments of origin and generation effects: Comparisons between young and elderly adults.Psychology & Aging,4, 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Rabinowitz, J. C., &Craik, F. I. M. (1986). Specific enhancement effects associated with word generation.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Reardon, R., Durso, F. T., Foley, M. A., &McGahan, J. R. (1987). Expertise and the generation effect.Social Cognition,5, 336–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Schmidt, S. R. (1990). A test of resource-allocation explanations of the generation effect.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,28, 93–96.

    Google Scholar 

  82. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Schmidt, S. R. (1992). Evaluating the role of distinctiveness in the generation effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  83. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Schmidt, S. R., &Cherry, K. (1989). The negative generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Memory & Cognition,17, 359–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Schweickert, R., McDaniel, M. A., &Riegler, G. (1994). Effects of generation on immediate memory span and delayed unexpected free recall.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 781–804.

    Google Scholar 

  85. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Serra, M., &Nairne, J. S. (1993). Design controversies and the generation effect: Support for an item-order hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,21, 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Slamecka, N. J., &Fevreiski, J. (1983). The generation effect when generation fails.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Slamecka, N. J., &Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 589–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Smith, R. W., &Healy, A. F. (1998). The time-course of the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,26, 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Smith, S. M., &Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Soloway, R. M. (1986). No generation effect without semantic activation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,24, 261–262.

    Google Scholar 

  92. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Soraci, S. A., Jr.,Carlin, M. T., Chechile, R. A., Franks, J. J., Wills, T., &Watanabe, T. (1999). Encoding variability and cuing in generative processing.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 541–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Soraci, S. A., Jr.,Franks, J. J., Bransford, J. D., Chechile, R. A., Belli, R. F., Carr, M., &Carlin, M. (1994). Incongruous item generation effects: A multiple-cue perspective.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Steffens, M. C., &Erdfelder, E. (1998). Determinants of positive and negative generation effects in free recall.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A, 705–733.

    Google Scholar 

  95. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Taconnat, L., &Isingrini, M. (2004). Cognitive operations in the generation effect on a recall test: Role of aging and divided attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 827–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Thompson, C. P., &Barnett, C. (1981). Memory for product names: The generation effect.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 241–243.

    Google Scholar 

  97. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Toth, J. P., &Hunt, R. R. (1990). Effect of generation on a wordidentification task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 993–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., &Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 607–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Viswesvaran, C., &Schmidt, F. L. (1992). A meta-analytic comparison of the effectiveness of smoking cessation methods.Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 554–561.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Watkins, M. J., &Sechler, E. S. (1988). Generation effect with an incidental memorization procedure.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. (indicates work included in meta-analysis)Widner, R. L., Jr. (1995). Associative spread as a mediating variable in the generation effect.Memory,3, 1–19.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. ba]Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., &Li, K. Z. H. (2000). Human memory. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.),Handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 293–357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Bertsch.

Additional information

Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bertsch, S., Pesta, B.J., Wiscott, R. et al. The generation effect: A meta-analytic review. Memory & Cognition 35, 201–210 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193441

Download citation

Keywords

  • Experimental Psychology
  • Generation Effect
  • Target Word
  • Free Recall
  • Word Fragment