Attentional state during acquisition is an important determinant of performance on direct memory tests. In two experiments we investigated the effects of dividing attention during acquisition on conceptually driven and data-driven indirect memory tests. Subjects read a list of words with or without distraction. Memory for the words was later tested with an indirect memory test or a direct memory test that differed only in task instructions. In Experiment 1, the indirect test was categoryexemplar production (a conceptually driven task) and the direct test was category-cued recall. In Experiment 2, the indirect test was word-fragment completion (a data-driven task) and the direct test was word-fragment cued recall. Dividing attention at encoding decreased performance on both direct memory tests. Of the indirect tests, category-exemplar production but not word-fragment completion was affected. The results indicate that conceptually driven indirect memory tests, like direct memory tests, are affected by divided attention, whereas data-driven indirect tests are not. These results are interpreted within the transfer-appropriate processing framework.

In 5 experiments, participants read study words under conditions of divided or full attention. Dividing attention reduced performance on the general knowledge test, a conceptual implicit test of memory. Likewise, dividing attention reduced conceptual priming on the wordassociation task, as well as on a matched explicit test, associate-cued recall. In contrast, even very strong division of attention did not reduce perceptual priming on word-fragment completion, although it did reduce recall on the matched explicit test of word-fragment-cued recall. Finally, dividing attention reduced recall on the perceptual explicit tests of graphemiccued recall and graphemic recognition. The results indicate that perceptual implicit tests rely minimally on attention-demanding encoding proceses relative to other types of memory tests. The obtained pattern of dissociations is not readily accommodated by the transfer-appropriateprocessing (TAP) account of implicit and explicit memory. Potential extensions of the TAP view are discussed.Attention during encoding plays a critical role in later memory performance. Dividing attention during encoding reduces performance on many measures of memory, including free and cued recall and recognition (e.g.,

Generation enhances item memory but may not enhance other aspects of memory. In 12 experiments, the author investigated the effect of generation on context memory, motivated in part by the hypothesis that generation produces a trade-off in encoding item and contextual information. Participants generated some study words (e.g., hot-c__) and read others (e.g., hot-cold). Generation consistently enhanced item memory but did not enhance context memory. More specifically, generation disrupted context memory for the color of the target word but did not affect context memory for location, background color, and cue-word color. The specificity of the negative generation effect in context memory argues against a general item-context trade-off. A processing account of generation meets greater success. In addition, the results provide no evidence that generation enhances recollection of contextual details.

Across 3 experiments, we investigated the factors that dictate when taking a test improves subsequent memory performance (the testing effect). In Experiment 1, participants retrieving a set of targets during a retrieval practice phase ultimately recalled fewer of those targets compared with a group of participants who studied the targets twice, a negative testing effect. In Experiments 2 and 3, theoretically motivated modifications to the basic design of Experiment 1 reversed this pattern, demonstrating the more typical positive testing effect. The results from all 3 experiments were predicted by the multifactor account, an explanatory account applied to the generation effect (improved memory for self-generated material), which details why generation typically improves memory, as well as those conditions under which generation can impair memory performance. These results suggest the testing effect and the generation effect may be understood within a common framework.

The role of attention during encoding is important to many current accounts of the implicit/explicit memory distinction. Some accounts suggest that implicit memory tests reflect automatic (non-attentiondemanding) encoding processes, whereas other accounts (such as the transfer-appropriate-processing view) suggest that performance on conceptual implicit tests requires attention during encoding. The present study manipulates attention at encoding over several levels (by varying short-term memory load) and examines the effects on the category-exemplar production task (a conceptual implicit memory test) and its explicit counterpart, category-cued recall. Dividing attention decreased performance on both tests, but in different ways. Mild divisions of attention reduced recall but not conceptual priming. Strong divisions of attention reduced performance on both tests and, in addition, eliminated conceptual priming entirely. These findings resolve apparently conflicting results in the literature and help to clarify the relationship between attention and performance on implicit memory tests.