Abstract
Generating solutions to anagrams leads to a memory advantage for those solutions, with generated words remembered better than words simply read. However, an additional advantage is not typically found for solutions to difficult anagrams relative to solutions to easy ones, presenting a challenge for the cognitive effort explanation of the generation effect. In the present series of experiments, the effect of manipulating anagram difficulty is explored further by introducing two new source-monitoring judgments. These studies demonstrate that when attention is directed at test to the operations activated during encoding (by way of source-monitoring judgments focused on solving vs. constructing anagrams), a source advantage is observed for difficult anagrams. However, when attention is directed to the anagrams themselves, asking participants to remember the kinds of anagrams generated or solved (based on kind of rule rather than subjective impressions of difficulty), a similar source advantage is not observed. The present studies bring a new perspective to the investigation of difficulty manipulations on memory for problem solving by illustrating the impact of a shift in focus from the effort mediating cognitive operations to specifics about the cognitive operations themselves.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bayen, U. J., Murnane, K., &Erdfelder, E. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 197–215.
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 657–668.
Dewhurst, S. A., &Hitch, G. J. (1999). Cognitive effort and recollective experience in recognition memory.Memory,7, 129–146.
deWinstanley, P. A. (1995). A generation effect can be found during naturalistic learning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 538–541.
Finke, R. A., Johnson, M. K., &Shyi, G. C. (1988). Memory confusions for real and imagined completions of symmetrical visual patterns.Memory & Cognition,16, 133–137.
Foley, M. A., Durso, F. T., Wilder, A., &Friedman, R. (1991). Developmental comparisons of explicit versus implicit imagery and reality monitoring.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,51, 1–13.
Foley, M. A., Foley, H. J., Durley, J., &Maitner, A. (2006). Anticipating partners’ responses: Examining item and source memory following interactive exchanges.Memory & Cognition,34, 1539–1547.
Foley, M. A., Foley, H. J., &Korenman, L. M. (2002). Adapting a memory framework (source monitoring) to the study of closure processes.Memory & Cognition,30, 412–422.
Foley, M. A., Foley, H. J., Wilder, A., &Rusch, L. (1989). Anagram solving: Does effort have an effect?Memory & Cognition,17, 755–758.
Foley, M. A., Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (1983). Age-related changes in confusion between memories for thoughts and memories for speech.Child Development,54, 51–60.
Foley, M. A., &Ratner, H. H. (1998). Children’s recoding memory for collaboration: A way of learning from others.Cognitive Development,13, 91–108.
Foley, M. A., Santini, C., &Sopasakis, M. (1989). Discriminating between memories: Evidence for children’s spontaneous elaborations.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,48, 146–169.
Gardiner, J. M. (2000). On the objectivity of subjective experiences of autonoetic and noetic consciousness. In E. Tulving (Ed.),Memory, consciousness, and the brain: The Tallinn Conference (pp. 159–172). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., &Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1999). Response deadline and subjective awareness in recognition memory.Consciousness & Cognition,8, 484–496.
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.
Greene, R. L. (1992).Human memory: Paradigms and paradoxes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hicks, J. L., &Marsh, R. L. (2001). False recognition occurs more frequently during source identification than during old-new recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 375–383.
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.
Jacoby, L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.
Johns, E. E., &Swanson, L. G. (1988). The generation effect with nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 180–190.
Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., &Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 371–376.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.
Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (2000). Cognitive and brain mechanisms of false memories and beliefs. In D. L. Schacter & E. Scarry (Eds.),Memory, brain, and belief (pp. 35–86). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Kelley, M. R., &Nairne, J. S. (2001). von Restorff revisited: Isolation, generation, and memory for order.Memory & Cognition,27, 54–66.
Kinjo, H., &Snodgrass, J. G. (2000). Does the generation effect occur for pictures?American Journal of Psychology,113, 95–121.
Kinoshita, S. (1989). Generation enhances semantic processing? The role of distinctiveness in the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,17, 563–571.
Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1991). Recognition memory and source monitoring.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 203–205.
Marsh, E. J., Edelman, G., &Bower, G. H. (2001). Demonstrations of a generation effect in context memory.Memory & Cognition,29, 798–805.
Marsh, R. L., &Bower, G. H. (1993). Eliciting cryptomnesia: Unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 673–688.
Marsh, R. L., &Hicks, J. L. (1998). Test formats change sourcemonitoring decision processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1137–1151.
Mayzner, M. S., &Tresselt, M. E. (1958). Anagram solution times: A function of letter order and word frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology,56, 376–379.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., &Lollis, T. (1988). Qualitative and quantitative considerations in encoding difficulty effects.Memory & Cognition,16, 8–14.
McElroy, L. A., &Slamecka, N. J. (1982). Memorial consequences of generating nonwords: Implications for semantic-memory interpretations of the generation effect.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 249–259.
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.
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.
Mulligan, N. W. (2001). Generation and hypermnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 436–450.
Mulligan, N. W. (2002). The emergent generation effect and hypermnesia: Influences of semantic and nonsemantic generation tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 541–554.
Mulligan, N. W. (2004). Generation and memory for contextual detail.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 838–855.
Murnane, K., &Bayen, U. J. (1996). An evaluation of empirical measures of source identification.Memory & Cognition,24, 417–428.
Nairne, J. S., Pusen, C., &Widner, R. L. (1985). Representation in the mental lexicon: Implications for theories of the generation effect.Memory & Cognition,13, 183–191.
Nairne, J. S., &Widner, R. L. (1987). Generation effects with non words: The role of test appropriateness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 164–171.
Rabinowitz, J. C. (1989). Judgments of origin and generation effects: Comparisons between young and elderly adults.Psychology & Aging,4, 259–268.
Ross, H. S., &Balzer, R. H. (1975). Determinants and consequences of children’s questions.Child Development,46, 536–539.
Ross, H. S., &Killey, J. C. (1977). The effect of questioning on retention.Child Development,48, 312–314.
Schmidt, S. R., &Cherry, K. (1989). The negative generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Memory & Cognition,17, 359–369.
Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.
Srinivas, K., &Roediger, H. L., III (1990). Classifying implicit memory tests: Category association and anagram solution.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 389–412.
Steffens, M. C., &Erdfelder, E. (1998). Determinants of positive and negative generation effects in free recall.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A, 705–733.
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.
Thorndike, E. L., &Lorge, I. (1944).The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
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.
Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., Sanft, H., &Rose, K. C. (1983). Encoding effort and recall: A cautionary note.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 747–756.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF/REU Grant SBR-9619404.
Note-This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Foley, M.A., Foley, H.J. Source-monitoring judgments about anagrams and their solutions: Evidence for the role of cognitive operations information in memory. Memory & Cognition 35, 211–221 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193442
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193442