Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

On the Role of Generation Rules in Moderating the Beneficial Effects of Errorful Generation

Published Online:April 14, 2021https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000442

Abstract

Abstract. In participants’ learning of semantically related paired associates, such as whale-mammal, prior research has demonstrated that having participants first attempt to predict what the to-be-learned response to a given cue will be enhances subsequent cued recall of that response, even when such predictions are always wrong (e.g., Kornell et al., 2009). In six experiments, we evaluate the importance of such error-prone predictions having a semantic basis – versus an acoustic (rhyming) basis. Our results show that both semantic generation as well as semantically related materials seem necessary if errorful generation is to have positive effects; generation based on other rules and materials does not aid learning. Learners are not, however, metacognitively aware of such benefits of generating errors.

References

  • Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The generation effect: A metanalytic review. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193441 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. MetcalfeA. ShimamuraEds., Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4561.001.0001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bridger, E. K., & Mecklinger, A. (2014). Errorful and errorless learning: The impact of cue–target constraint in learning from errors. Memory & Cognition, 42, 898–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0408-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193405 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cyr, A. A., & Anderson, N. D. (2015). Mistakes as stepping stones: Effects of errors on episodic memory among younger and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000073 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Huelser, B. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2012). Making related errors facilitates learning, but learners do not know it. Memory & Cognition, 40(4), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0167-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90393-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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(4), 626–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.626 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Knight, J. B., Ball, B. H., Brewer, G. A., DeWitt, M. R., & Marsh, R. L. (2012). Testing unsuccessfully: A specification of the underlying mechanisms supporting its influence on retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015729 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kornell, N., & Vaughn, K. E. (2016). How retrieval attempts affect learning: A review and synthesis. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 65, 183–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.03.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Libkuman, T. M. (1994). Norms for words that rhyme. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26(3), 278–322. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204638 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review, 56(3), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057488 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Potts, R., Davies, G., & Shanks, D. R. (2019). The benefit of generating errors during learning: What is the locus of the effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(6), 1023–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000637 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). The benefit of generating errors during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033194 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rabinowitz, J. C., & Craik, F. I. (1986). Specific enhancement effects associated with word generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90031-8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Fevreiski, J. (1983). The generation effect when generation fails. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90112-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038388 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar