In 2 experiments, the generation effect, which occurs when individuals remember materials they have generated (and, thus, targeted) better than materials generated (and targeted) by others, was investigated. The effect has not generally been found in natural settings when total test performance was examined. The examination of total performance rather than just targeted items may mask the effect because items not studied (nontargets) are included. In Experiment 1, groups were compared that generated their own outlines or study questions with groups that received experimenter-generated materials. Test scores showed generation effects for target items. In Experiment 2, students who generated questions were compared with yoked students who used those student-generated questions. Results were again significant, indicating that the generation effect and not potential confounding variables produced the results. The effect does occur in a natural setting, but only for test items targeted by generating students.The generation effect refers to the finding that individuals retain materials that they have generated better than materials that have been generated by others and given to them (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Although this effect has been fairly robust in the laboratory, it has generally not been found in more applied settings. In the present experiments we attempt to show why the effect has not previously been found in applied settings and to suggest ways in which generation can benefit students and instructors working in such settings. Generation EffectThe generation effect is typically obtained in laboratory settings in which one group of participants generates words (e.g., clown) from presented word fragments (e.g., cl-wn) whereas another group simply reads the presented words. On a later, often unexpected (e.g., Watkins & Sechler, 1988), test of memory, the group that generated the words performs better than the group that read the words (e.g., Jacoby, 1978;Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Several different explanations of this effect have been offered, and a number of factors seem to influence the likelihood of obtaining the effect. For example, Begg, Snider, Foley, and Goddard (1989) provided evidence that the generation of materials provides a more distinctive encoding, and Begg, Vinski, Frankovich, and Holgate (1991) showed that such an en-

What are the processes involved in constructing a linear order from a set of relations between pairs of elements in the order? Subjects were presented with sets of digit pairs and instructed to form a single digit string on the basis of the order relations expressed by the pairs; for example, given 57, 19, 71, the correct response is 5719. Manipulations of presentation order revealed constructive processes of varying difficulty depending on whether a pair has zero, one, or two digits in common with the digits held in memory as an incomplete, constructed string. The least difficult processes arise when there is one common element. If the common element occurs at the end of the string in memory, construction is easier than when the new digit must be added to the beginning of the string. When a pair has no digits in common with the string in memory, constructing the correct string becomes substantially more difficult, especially when subsequent pairs having two digits in common require that a tentative order of digits held in memory be reorganized.

Subjects constructed four-term linear orders from three sentences expressing the relationships between adjacent elements in the order. Successful performance was more likely when the second sentence introduced only one element not mentioned in the first sentence rather than two new elements and when the second and third sentences introduced new elements as grammatical subjects rather than objects. Except for the latter result, previously proposed theories of reasoning processes primarily in three-term series problems, predict other differences that failed to appear. Apparently, in longer series, memory limitations favor conditions in which each sentence after the first presents a relationship between a new and an old element in linguistic forms that identify the new element.A number of recent studies have shown that when a subject is asked to learn or remember a set of sentences that describe a linear ordering, what is remembered is the ordering rather than the individual sentences (Barclay, 1973;Potts, 1972). For example, when presented with the sentences, "The bear is smarter than the hawk, the hawk is smarter than the wolf, and the wolf is smarter than the deer," subjects construct and retain the following linear order: bear, hawk, wolf, deer. The evidence for the foregoing hypothesis consists of two types of findings. Potts (1972) showed that subjects who had studied sentences such as those given above were faster and more accurate in judging the truth of sentences describing nonadjacent members of the order, e.g., "The bear is smarter than the wolf," which they had not seen before, than in judging comparable sentences describing adjacent members, e.g., "The bear is smarter than the hawk," which they had seen. Barclay (1973) showed that subjects who had learned a set of sentences derived. from a five-term linear ordering responded in a sentence memory test solely on the basis of whether the sentences were true of the the ordering as opposed to their actual presence on the learning list. The best explanation of these findings is to assume that subjects construct their own linear array and respond to test items on the basis of whether the item is true or false of the array.Although a great deal of effort and discussion has been devoted to discovering the exact nature of the subject's mental representation of the order (Barclay & Reid, 1974;Potts, 1974;Scholz & Potts, 1974), somewhat less attention has been given to the question of how the mental ordering is constructed, and very little research has been conducted to determine what variables influence these constructive processes. Barclay (1973) has shown that instructions to the subjects can influence to some extent whether or not the linear order is constructed. But in cases where it is clear that subjects are engaged in constructing a linear order, there remains the question of how the constructive process operates. More to the point, Potts (1972) found that overall performance was poorer for subjects who received as input a compound sentence in which the s...

The authors examined ratings of facial attractiveness, rankings of faces and reasons given by young, middle-aged, and older men and women for young, middle-aged, and older male and female face attractiveness. No support for predictions derived from similarity, interest, and cohort hypotheses was obtained. In support of the expertise hypothesis, young and middle-aged adults rated younger faces as more attractive than old faces, whereas older adults rated all aged faces equally. In support of the crone hypothesis, older female faces were rated the lowest of all faces. Theoretical implications and real-world applications are discussed.

The present study assessed the value of test-taking as a means of increasing, rather than simply monitoring, learning. One hundred and five college students read a short essay about the American Civil War and were then given either an initial test or no test about the text material. The form of the initial test was either fill-in or multiple-choice: and the knowledge examined was either directly stated in the original text (verbatim) or could be logically derived (inferential) from the text. A common final test, containing all of the above item types, was given to all students two days later. Scores on the final test indicated that in general, those students who did the initial test performed better than the control students, which indicates the potential value of tests as learning experiences. Furthermore, the enhancement provided by the initial test varied with the different test techniques: It was greater for fill-in than for multiple-choice forms and greater for inferential than for verbatim knowledge. It is suggested that teachers make use of the learning potential of tests and construct them so as to maximize the kind of learning desired.The authors wish to thank Yolanda Leon for her assistance in data collection and the reviewers for their helpful comments. A portion of this article was presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Orlando, March 1986.