The production effect benefits performance in between-subject designs: A meta-analysis

Fawcett, Jonathan M.

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.001

Cited by 74 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the goal of the current research was neither to test the distinctiveness account of the production effect nor to adjudicate between it and the other proposed mechanism, a memory-strength account (Bodner & Taikh, 2012;Fawcett, 2013), the current results are consistent with the suggestion that distinctive processing underlies the production effect in two ways. First, in both experiments, memory was greater for items that benefited from itemspecific processing (reading aloud) only when placed in a context in which similarity could also be assessed (mixed lists).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

The production effect: Costs and benefits in free recall.

Jones¹,

Pyc²

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The production effect, the memorial benefit for information read aloud versus silently, has been touted as a simple memory improvement tool. The current experiments were designed to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of production using a free recall paradigm. Results extend beyond prior work showing a production effect only when production is manipulated within subject, not between, using a free recall paradigm. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the production effect is primarily driven by decreased memory for items read silently, not increased memory for items read aloud.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

The production effect: Costs and benefits in free recall.

Jones¹,

Pyc²

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a between-subjects design, correct recall was expectedly lower after a delay, but was equivalent between blocked and alternated list types, a finding that is consistent with other encoding contexts, such as generation and production, that have shown diminished or eliminated effects under between-subjects designs (Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott, & McDaniel, 2007; Fawcett, 2013). Importantly, false recall was equivalent between blocked and alternated lists on an immediate test, a pattern consistent with Hutchison and Balota (2005) and AMT, but was greater on blocked lists after a delay, consistent with the notion that gist-based processes are more influential after a delay.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

List blocking and longer retention intervals reveal an influence of gist processing for lexically ambiguous critical lures

Huff¹,

McNabb

Hutchison

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we examined veridical and false memory for lists of associates from two meanings (e.g., stumble, trip, harvest, pumpkin, etc.) that converged upon a single, lexically ambiguous critical lure (e.g., fall), in order to compare the activation-monitoring and fuzzy-trace false memory accounts. In Experiment 1, we presented study lists that were blocked or alternated by meaning (within subjects), followed by a free recall test completed immediately or after a 2.5-min delay. Correct recall was greater for blocked than for alternated lists. Critical-lure false recall was greater for blocked lists on an immediate test, whereas both list types produced equivalent false recall on a delayed test. In Experiment 2, lists blocked and alternated by meaning were presented via a between-subjects design, in order to eliminate possible list-type carryover effects. Correct recall replicated the result from Experiment 1; however, blocking lists increased false recall on delayed, but not on immediate, tests. Across the experiments, clustering correct recall by meaning increased across the delay selectively for the alternated lists. Our results suggest that thematic (i.e., gist) processes are influential for false recall, especially following a delay, a pattern consistent with fuzzy-trace theory.

show abstract

“…2014, p. 509). Since their initial study in 2010, multiple studies have reported similar findings with adults in behavioral research (Fawcett, 2013;Kaushanskaya & Yoo, 2011;Mama & Icht, 2016;MacLeod, 2011;Zamuner, Morin-Lessard, Strahm, & Page, 2016, among others) and neurophysiological research (Mathias, Palmer, Perrin, & Tillmann, 2015). The production effect is strongest in within-subject designs (Fawcett, 2013), and there are studies showing no effect of production in between-subjects designs (e.g., Abbs, Gupta, & Khetarpal, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Reverse production effect: children recognize novel words better when they are heard rather than produced

Zamuner

Strahm

Morin-Lessard

et al. 2017

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates the effect of production on 4.5- to 6-year-old children's recognition of newly learned words. In Experiment 1, children were taught four novel words in a produced or heard training condition during a brief training phase. In Experiment 2, children were taught eight novel words, and this time training condition was in a blocked design. Immediately after training, children were tested on their recognition of the trained novel words using a preferential looking paradigm. In both experiments, children recognized novel words that were produced and heard during training, but demonstrated better recognition for items that were heard. These findings are opposite to previous results reported in the literature with adults and children. Our results show that benefits of speech production for word learning are dependent on factors such as task complexity and the developmental stage of the learner.

show abstract

The production effect benefits performance in between-subject designs: A meta-analysis

Cited by 74 publications

References 17 publications

The production effect: Costs and benefits in free recall.

The production effect: Costs and benefits in free recall.

List blocking and longer retention intervals reveal an influence of gist processing for lexically ambiguous critical lures

Reverse production effect: children recognize novel words better when they are heard rather than produced

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About