Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading.

I Begg1, E Vinski, L Frankovich

  • 1Department of Psychology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Memory & Cognition
|September 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Retention functions for syntactic and lexical vs semantic information in sentence recognition memory.

Memory & cognition·2013
Same author

Similarity and contrast in memory for relations.

Memory & cognition·2013
Same author

Contextual imagery in meaning and memory.

Memory & cognition·2011
Same author

Pictures and words in visual search.

Memory & cognition·2011
Same author

Refining procedures for the administration of substances. Report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation/Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.

Laboratory animals·2001
Same author

Concreteness and relational effects on recall of adjective-noun pairs.

Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale·2000
Same journal

Limited protective effects of multilingualism against age-related cognitive decline.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Validation of illustrated texts: Can pictures raise awareness of inconsistencies?

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

4I remember (and forget) your happy smiling face: Directed forgetting of emotionally expressive faces of in-group and out-group members.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Identity in the spotlight: Matching faces without overlapping features.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Test delay and change awareness moderate retroactive and proactive memory effects.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

The Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion in short-term memory: Opposite effects of retention interval on true and false recognition.

Memory & cognition·2026
See all related articles

Generating information improves memory recall, but only when items are processed shallowly, like through pronunciation. Deep processing, such as imagination, negates this generation effect. Metamemory predictions about recall accuracy were also inaccurate.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Memory Studies
  • Metacognition

Background:

  • Previous research indicates memory benefits when individuals generate information from fragments compared to reading complete information.
  • A key question is whether this 'generation effect' stems from the act of generation itself or from differing cognitive strategies employed during generation versus reading.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether the generation effect is contingent on the depth of information processing.
  • To explore the influence of generation on metamemory accuracy.

Main Methods:

  • Participants were tasked with either generating or reading word items.
  • Processing depth was manipulated by instructing participants to either pronounce the words (shallow processing) or imagine them (deep processing).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Metamemory judgments (predictions of recall) were collected before recall was tested.

    • Main Results:

    • A generation effect was observed only when participants engaged in shallow processing (pronunciation).
    • When participants engaged in deep processing (imagination), generating items yielded no memory benefit over reading them.
    • Participants overestimated their recall for generated items compared to read items, but this prediction was inaccurate.

    Conclusions:

    • The memory benefits of generation are dependent on the depth of cognitive processing.
    • Shallow processing during generation enhances recall, while deep processing does not.
    • Metamemory predictions about the benefits of generation are unreliable, as the act of prediction itself can lead to deeper processing.