P rocessing In structions and the G eneration E ffect: A T est of the M ultifactor T ransfer-appropriate P rocessing T heory

Transcription

1 Ó M E M O R Y, , 5 (3 ), 4 01 ±42 1 P rocessing In structions and the G eneration E ffect: A T est of the M ultifactor T ransfer-appropriate P rocessing T heory Patricia A. dew instanle y O berlin C ollege, O hio, U SA E liza beth L igon B jork U niversity of C alifornia, Los A ngeles, U SA W e report tw o experim ents designed to test further the m ultifactor transferappropriate processing explanation of generation effects (dew instanley, B jork, & B jork, 1996). T he present research focuses on the follow ing assu m ptions: (a) that processing resources are lim ited and, thus, the processing of one type of info rm ation can b e, and often is, incom p atible w ith th e p rocessin g of oth er types o f inform ation ; and (b ) that reading and generating differ in term s of the flexibility they perm it for the distribution of the su bject s processing reso urces across the available inform ation in an experim ental context. T hese assum ptions w ere tested by exam ining the consequences of processing instructions on the occurrence of generation effects, and the lack thereof, in free recall and cued recall. A cross both experim ents, identical processing instructions had strikingly different conse - quences on the later free-recall and cued -recall perform ance of su bjects w ho encoded targets by generating them versus reading them, a pattern consistent w ith the foregoing assum ptions. INTR ODUCTION T h e generation effect refers to the finding that subject-prod uced inform ation is better rem em bered than experim enter-supplied inform ation (Jacoby, 1978; Slam ecka & G raf, 1978). For nearly tw o decades, the generation effect has proved rem arkably robust. It has been obtained for a variety of m aterials and types of tests and, m ore recently, has even w ithstood w hat initially appeared to R e q u es ts fo r re prints sh ou ld be se n t to P a tric ia A nn de W in stan le y, O be rlin C olle ge, D e p ar tm e nt o f Psychology, Severance Laboratory, O berlin, O H , U S A. T his research w as aided by a grant to the first author from the K eck F oundation. P ortions of this re se ar ch w e re p re se nted a t th e m e e tin g o f th e P syc h on om ic S oc ie ty, S t. L ou is, M O, U S A. W e thank W endy H eberlien and Josh K ipnes for help in conducting these experim ents. W e also th a nk Ja m e s T a n a ka, W illia m F r ie dm a n, Ju dith B e in ste in -M iller, a n d R ob e rt G re e n e (as w el l a s tw o anonym ous review ers) fo r their critical com m ents on a previous version of the m anuscript Psychology Press, an im print of Erlbaum (U K ) Taylor & Francis L td

2 402 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK be a devastating challenge to its im portance as a m em ory phenom enonð nam ely, the finding of little or no generation advantage on free-recall tests w hen the read-versus-generate m anipulation w as im plem ented on a betw een-list basis (e.g. B egg & Snider, 1987; Slam ecka & K atsaiti, 1987). Individual theories of the generation effect, how ever, have proved less robust to challenges. Indeed, M cd aniel, W addill, and Einstein (1988, p.5 22) have asserted that ``it is only a m ild exaggeration to note that the num ber of accounts for the generation effect is slightly less than the num ber of reports of the effect itself. O n the other hand, w hile perhaps no individual theory has survived intact, few have died entirely. R ather, aspects of older theories have tended to reappear, often w ith slight m odification, in new er theories. For exam ple, in proposing their m ultifactor theory of generation effects, M cd aniel, W addill, and Einstein built on the tw o- factor theory of H irshm an and B jork (1988) and, m ore recently, dew instanley, B jork, and B jork (1996) built on the previous accounts of these researchers as w ell as those of others (e.g. R abinow itz & C raik, 1986) in proposing a m ultifactor transfer-appropriate processing account of generation effects. In the m ultifactor transfer-appropriate processing account, the prim ary subject of the present research, the follow ing assum ptions are m ade: (a) that the requirem ent to generate presents subjects w ith a problem to be solved, and subjects are thus led to process w hatever inform ation is helpful in solving the problem Ð the types of inform ation that subjects m ight find useful include targetspecific inform ation (inform ation about the target item itself, e.g. how it looks; H irshm an & B jork, 1988), cue±target relational inform ation (inform ation about the relationship the target has to the cue, e.g. an antonym ; H irshm an & B jork, 1988), and w hole- list or target±target relational inform ation (e.g. categorical relationships am ong targets in the list; M cd aniel et al., 19 88); (b) that the req uirem e nt to ge nerate e nha nce s th e p ro cessing o f w h atev er ty pe of inform ation is used as the basis for generation in com parison to the processing that w ould typically be given to such inform ation by subjects reading intact stim uli; (c) that the processing of one type of inform ation can be, and often is, incom patible w ith the processing of other types of inform ationð for exam ple, the processing of cue±target relational inform ation can be incom patible w ith the processing of w hole-list relational inform ation (e.g. H irshm an & B jork, 1988); and (d) that a generation advantage w ill be observed to the extent that a later criterion test (e.g. recognition or cued recall) is sensitive to the type of inform ation enhanced by the generation task (e.g. H irshm an & B jork, 1988; Jacoby, 1983; R abinow itz & C raik, 1986). In dew instanley et al. (1996), research w as reported testing the last assu m p tion, w hich esse ntially applies the notio n of transfer- appropriate processing (M orris, B ransford, & Franks, 1977) to the m ultifactor fram ew ork for explaining generation effects. The m aterials used in this research w ere cue± target pairs in w hich each target, w hile belonging to one of four categories, also had a unique cueð that is, a cue to w hich it w as related but w hich bore little or

3 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 403 no relation to other targets in the sam e category (e.g. island±pineapple; fuzzy± peach). A t the sam e tim e, how ever, each target w as only w eakly related to its specific cue and, thus, difficult to generate on the basis of that inform ation alone. In their first experim ent, pairs w ere presented blocked by category m em bership, leading generate subjects to rely prim arily on this highly salient target±target relational inform ationð as opposed to the w eak cue±target relational inform a- tionð in order to generate targets. A s predicted by the fram ew ork s transferappropriate processing assum ption, the resulting enhanced processing of target± target relational inform ation led to a generation advantage on a later free-recall test, presum ed to be prim arily sensitive to such inform ation (E instein & H unt, 1980; H unt & E instein, 1981); w hereas the lessened p rocessing of cue±target relational inform ation as a basis for generation led to the lack of a generation advantage on a later cued-recall test, presum ed to be prim arily sensitive to cue± target relational inform ation (B egg 1978; H irshm an & B jork, 1988). In dew instanley et al. s second experim ent, the sam e pairs w ere presented, but w ere no longer blocked by category m em bership, forcing generate subjects to rely on cue±target relational inform ation in order to generate targets. A gain, in keeping w ith the fram ew ork s transfer-appropriate processing assum ption, the resulting enhanced processing of cue±target relational inform ation led to a generation advantage on a later cued-recall test, w hile the lessened processing of target±target relational inform ation elim inated the generation advantage on a later free-recall test. T hus, across these tw o experim ents, com pletely opposite patterns of results w ere obtained as a function of the nature of a later criterion test (free recall vs. cued-recall) and the type of inform ation (target±target relational vs. cue±target relational) processed by subjects as a basis for generating identical targets. In the present paper, w e report research prim arily focusing on the third assum ption described earlierð that the processing of one type of inform ation can be incom patible w ith the processing of other types of inform ationð and the consequences of this assum ption, w hich is essentially an assum ption of lim ited processing resources, for producing (or failing to produce) generation effects as a function of the nature of a later criterion test. W e also propose and test som e possible processing differences betw een generating and reading as w ays of encoding inform ationð differences that, com bined w ith the other assum ptions of the m ultifactor transfer-appropriate processing fram ew ork, allow predictions of circum stances under w hich w e should or should not expect to observe generate advantages as w ell as read advantages. M ore specifically, w e assum e that because subjects w ho generate have a task to perform Ð the generation of targetsð and usually have only a lim ited tim e in w hich to generate each target, their processing efforts w ill be m ore restricted in term s of the types of inform ation they process as com pared to subjects reading intact inform ation. T hat is, subjects w ho generate w ill be led to focus their processing efforts on that inform ation m ost useful to solving the generation task.

4 404 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK C onsequently, w hile the processing of that inform ation m ay be enhanced, the processing of other inform ation is likely to be im paired. If, for exam ple, cue± target relational inform ation w as critical for target generation, the processing of that inform ation w ould be enhanced, but at the expense of w hole-list or target± target relational processingð because, in the present fram ew ork, the processing of cue±target inform ation is assum ed typically to be incom patible w ith the processing of w hole-list inform ation. In contrast, subjects w ho readð and, thus, do not have their processing efforts guided by the generation taskð are m ore free to engage in w hatever types of processing they m ay deem to be m em oryenhancing. M ore specifically, w e assum e that subjects reading intact inform a- tion for the purpose of rem em bering w ill typically distribute their processing efforts m ore or less evenly across the different types of available inform ation. It is im portant to point out, how ever, that w e view this as a default assum ptionð that is, w e assum e it to hold w hen subjects w ho are reading intact inform ation for the purpose of rem em bering are perform ing under no special instructional or situational constraints. If given explicit (or im plicit) instructions to carry out particular m nem onic strategies (as w as done, for exam ple, by B egg, V inski, Frankovich, & H olgate, 1991), the processing activities of read subjects should be altered. 1 In the present research, w e test these proposed assum ptions concerning p rocessin g differen ces that occur w hen su bjects encode in form ation b y generating it versus reading it, in the context of the other assum ptions of the m ultifactor transfer- ap propriate pro cessing fram ew ork. A c cording to this fram ew ork, generation advantages occur w hen the requirem ents to generate opportunely focus processing resourcesð that is, lead to enhanced processing by generate subjects, as com pared to read subjects, of inform ation to w hich a later m em ory test is sensitive. C onsequently, if read subjects w ere also to be led to focus their processing resources in an opportune m anner, generation advantages should be reduced or elim inated. Suppose, for exam ple, thatð as in E xperim ent 1 of dew instanley et al. (1996)Ð m aterials w ere constructed such that generate subjects w ould be forced to focus on the processing of target±target relational inform ation in order to 1 W ith re sp e c t to th e pre se n t fra m e w ork, th e stud ie s o f B e g g e t a l. (1 99 1) w o u ld n o t be co n side re d as dem onstrating differences betw een the m nem onic effectiveness of generation versus read ing p e r se. R ather, w e see their research as com paring the m em orial consequences of gen erating to those of reading w hen both are com bined w ith additional types of encoding strateg ies, such as im ag ery or silent pronunciation. Furtherm ore, there are com plications w ith interpreting the read versus generate results they obtained becauseð given a constant presentation tim e fo r both intact an d to- be -g enerated targetsð read subjects w ould alw ays have had m ore tim e than generate subjects to engage in w hatever additional type of processing they had been instructed to do. T hus, fo r exam ple, how to interpret the lack of a generation ad van tage in the condition in w hich subjects w ere instructed to e n ga g e in im a g e ry p ro c e ssin g is u nc le ar a s, es se ntia lly, o n e is c om p a ring th e m ne m o n ic co n se q ue n c e o f ge n e ra tio n plus a sm a ll a m o u nt o f im a g e ry p ro c e ssin g to th a t o f re ad in g p lu s a g re a te r a m o un t of im ag ery pro cessing. It is thus unclear w hether gen eration w ould have resulted in an advantage in m em ory given the sam e am ounts of additional im agery pro cessing in the tw o conditions.

5 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 405 generate targets and, furtherm ore, that a later free-recall test, sensitive to such inform ation, w ere given. In the absence of providing read subjects w ith any particular processing instructions (i.e. the typical experim ental situation), w e w ould expect the free-recall perform ance of the generate subjects to be superior to that of the read subjectsð that is, to obtain a generation advantageð w hich w as, indeed, w hat happened. O n the other hand, suppose that, rather than being left alone to spread their processing efforts across all the types of inform ation present in the list, read subjects w ere explicitly directed in this situation to focus their processing efforts on target±target relational inform ation. A ccording to the present assum ptions, the generation advantage should be greatly lessened or elim inated. In contrast, because generate subjects m ust focus their processing efforts on the type of inform ation m ost useful for target generation, explicit instructions to attend to other types of inform ation should have less influence on th eir pro cessin g effo rts an d, co nse quen tly, on their la ter criterio n test perform ance. T hat is, the perform ance of generate subjects should be determ ined alm ost entirely by the relationship betw een the type of inform ation they m ust process in order to generate targets and the nature of a later criterion testð specifically, w hether the inform ation guiding the generation act is, or is not, the type of inform ation to w hich a later criterion test is sensitive. A s an em pirical test of these notions, w e first constructed a list of cue±target pairs that w e believed w ould force generate subjects to focus on the processing of target±target relational inform ation in order to generate targets. G iving such m aterials, w e then investigated w hat the consequences of different types of processing instructions w ould be, as a function of w hether a later criterion test w as, or w as not, sensitive to the type of inform ation subjects w ere explicitly instructed to process. B asically, if our assum ptions about processing differences betw een reading and generating are correct, then the perform ance of generate subjects should be largely unaffected by the type of explicit processing instructions they are given, because their processing efforts w ill be largely restricted by the requirem ents of the generation task. In contrast, because the processing strategies of read subjects are not so restricted and, thus, potentially m odifiable on the basis of instructions, their perform ance should vary as a function of the type of processing instructions they are given and w hether such instructions are, or are not, appropriate for a later criterion test. EXPER IM EN T 1 In E xperim ent 1, the criterion test em ployed w as a free-recall test because of its assum e prim ary sensitivity to w hole-list relational processing (see e.g. E instein & H unt, 1980; H unt & E instein, 1981; H unt & Seta, 1984; Sw artz, 1973; T u lving, 1962), and all subjects w ere given one of three types of processing instruction s: targe t±target, cue±target, and nonspecific. T he targ et±target processing instructions advised subjects to focus their processing efforts on the relations am ong the target item s in expectation of a free-recall test. The cue±

6 406 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK target processing instructions advised subjects to focus their processin g efforts on the relationship betw een each cue and target in expectation of a later cuedrecall test. T he nonspecific instructions replicated the m odal type of instruction given in intentional learning conditions in previous studies of the generation effect: nam ely, they advised subjects to expect a later m em ory test, the nature of w hich w as unspecified. G iven our assum ption that read subjects should be able to m odify their p ro cessing ac tiv ities in acc ordan ce w ith the in stru ctions p ro vid ed, th e perform ance of read subjects w as predicted to be best w hen the processing instructions m atched the later criterion test. T hus, given a free-recall criterion test, target±target processing instructions should produce better perform ance for read subjects than either cue±target or nonspecific processing instructions. In contrast, the perform ance of generate subjects should be largely unaffected by the processing instructions they are given, ow ing to the restrictions placed on their processing efforts by the dem ands of the generation task. Furtherm ore, in the condition in w hich read subjects are given explicit target±target processing instructions, little or no generation advantage w ould be expected, because the processing of such inform ation by generate subjects, as com pared to read subjects, should no longer be enhanced. A secondary set of predictions can be m ade regardin g the occurrence of output clustering. B ecause generate subjects should be forced by the dem ands of the generation task to focus on the processing of target±target inform ation rather than other types of inform ation available in the list, their recall perform ance should reflect a tendency to cluster w ith respect to category m em bership regardless of the type of processing instru ctions they are given. T he am ount of clustering in the recall of read subjects, on the other hand, should vary as a function of processing instructions if, in fact, they are able to m odify their processing efforts as assum ed. Specifically, then, w e w ould expect m ore clustering in the free recall of read subjects given target±target processing instructions than in that of read subjects given either cue±target or nonspecific processing instructions. M ethod Subjects. T he subjects w ere 114 O berlin C ollege undergraduates w hose participation in the experim ent partially fulfilled an introductory psychology course requirem ent. T hey w ere random ly assigned to each of the six betw eensubjects conditions, w ith the total in each condition being as follow s: 19 in each of the three generate processing-instruction conditions; 20 in both the read cue±target and the read target±target processing conditions; and 17 in the read non specific processing condition. D esign. T he design w as a 2 3 factorial, w ith encoding task (read vs. generate) and type of processing instructions (target±target, cue±target, and

7 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 407 nonspecific) m anipulated betw een subjects. R ead subjects read the cue and the target, and then w rote both the cue and the target on a page in their response booklet. G enerate subjects read the cue, solved the fragm ent, and then w rote both the cue and the target on a page in their response booklet. Subjects given target±target processing instructions read the follow ing: ``Y ou w ill be receiving a free-recall test in w hich you w ill be asked to recall all of the second m em bers of the w ord pairs. T o do w ell on your m em ory test, it is particularly im portant that you pay close attention to the relations am ong all of the second item s of the w ord pairs. Subjects given cue±target processing in structions read the follow ing: ``Y ou w ill be receiving a cued-recall test in w hich you w ill be given the first w ord and you m ust indicate w hich w ord w as paired w ith that w ord during the slide presentation. T o do w ell on your m em ory test, it is particularly im portant that you pay close attention to the relations betw een the tw o w ords. Subjects given nonspecific processing instructions read that they w ould be given a m em ory test, but the nature of the test w as unspecified. A ll subjects actually received a free-recall test. M aterials and A pparatus. T he stim uli w ere 24 cue±target pairs selected from M arshall and C ofer s (1970) w ord-association norm s. Six targets cam e from each of the follow ing categories: birds, fruit, alcoholic beverages, and insects. W ithin each category, cues w ere selected such that a pre-experim ental association existed betw een each cue and all six targets. For exam ple, the w ord ``sw eet (paired w ith the target ``pineapple in the study list) has a preexperim ental association w ith all of the other target item s in the fruit category as w ell. T he study list w as constructed in this m annerð that is, w ith preexperim ental associations existing betw een all cues and targets w ithin a given categoryð to ensure the saliency of the target±target relational inform ation. C ue±target pairs w ere presented one at a tim e using a K odak E ktagraphic projector. In the read conditions, each slide contained a cue paired w ith an intact target (e.g. juice±orange). In the generate conditions, each slide contained a cue paired w ith a fragm ented target (e.g. juice±or-n- -). The presentation order of the pairs w as determ ined using a block random isation procedu re w ith item s blocked by category m em bership and, once determ in ed, w as held constant for all subjects. R esponse and test booklets w ere prepared for each subject. R esponse booklets contained 24 pages so that each cue±target pair could be w ritten on a separate page. T he first page of each test booklet presented instructions regarding the test on the follow ing page, and the actual free-recall test page contained 24 blank lines on w hich subjects w rote the target item s. Procedure. Subjects w ere tested in groups of 1±10 individuals. They w ere inform ed of the type of item s they w ould be seeing and show n an exam ple. E ach subject w as given a response booklet and instructed to w rite both the cue and the

8 408 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK target m em ber of each pair, as it w as presented, on a separate page of the booklet, turning to the next blank page in preparation for w riting dow n the next cue±target pair as the projector advanced to the next slide. Subjects then received target±target, cue±target, or nonspecific processing instructions as appropriate. (R equiring subjects to w rite both the cue and the target ensured that they could not sim ply ignore the cueð a potential problem, particularly for subjects given the target±target processing instructions.) N ext, the stim uli w ere presented at a rate of seven seconds per slide, w ith the projector taking about one second to advance betw een successive slides. A fter the last slide w as show n, the response booklets w ere collected, and the subjects engaged in a verbal distractor task for tw o m inutes. T est booklets w ere then handed out, and subjects w ere allow ed tw o m inutes to com plete the free-recall test. R esults and Discussion For the present experim ent, and the experim ent to follow, all m eans reported are percentages and all m ean-squared errors reported are squared-percentages. G en era tion R a te. T h e m ea n g en eratio n fa ilure Ð th at is, the m ea n percentage of targets that subjects failed to generate at studyð w as 7.8%. T he analyses conditionalised on correctly generating the target at study did not differ from the analyses that w ere unconditional w ith respect to correct generation; thus, only the unconditional analyses are presented here. F ree-recall. Figure 1 presents the m ean percentages of targets that w ere correctly recalled by the generate versus the read subjects as a function of the three types of processing instructions. T he line extending beyond the top of each bar show s the corresponding standard error for that condition. T he data w ere analysed using a tw o-w ay betw een-subjects analysis of variance and plannedcom parisons. T he apparent interaction betw een encoding task and processing instructions indicated in Fig. 1 w as revealed to be significant, F (2,1 08) = 3.0 7, M S e = , P <.05. A s predicted, the perform ance of generate subjects w as unaffected by processing instructions, F (2,108) = 0.8 2, M S e = , P >.1 0; w hereas the perform ance of read subjects varied as a function of processing instructions, F (2,1 08) = 8.8 5, M S e = , P < Furtherm ore, for the read conditions, target±target processing instructions led to significantly m ore item s recalled than c u e ±ta rg e t an d n o n s pe c ific p ro c es sin g in stru c tio ns, F (1,1 0 8 ) = , M S e = , P <.0 1, F (1,1 08) = , M S e = , P <.0 01, respectively. T he lack of a processing-instruction effect in the generate conditions supports our hypothesis that the requirem ent to perform the generation task, given the nature of the present m aterials, w ould essentially restrict generate subjects to the

9 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 409 FIG. 1. M ean percentage of correctly recalled targets on a free-recall test for the generate and read conditions as a function of processing instructions in E xperim ent 1. T he lines extending beyond the bars represent standard errors. processing of target±target relational inform ation and, by and large, render them unable to m odify their processing efforts in response to instructions. R ead subjects, on the other hand, not being restricted in their processing efforts by the need to generate targets, w ere able to m odify their processing activities in a m anner consistent w ith the processing instructions, as indicated by their superior free-recall perform ance w hen directed to process the type of inform ation to w hich free-recall tests are presum ed to be m ost sensitiveð nam ely, target±target relational inform ation. A dditionally, our argum ent that the occurrence of a generation advantage should depend on the type of processing instructions given to read subjectsð in particular, that little or no generation advantage should occur w hen read subjects w ere directed to process target±target relational inform ationð w as supported by the results. T he difference betw een the free-recall perform ance of read and generate subjects given target±target processing instructions did not differ significantly, F (1,1 08) = 0.04, M S e = , P >.5 0; w hereas the perform ance

10 410 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK of generate subjects w as significantly better than that of the corresponding re ad su bje cts giv e n c ue ±targ et or n o nsp e cific p roc ess in g in stru c tio n s, F (1,108) = 8.7 3, M S e = , P <.0 1; F (1,108) = 6.6 7, M S e = , P <.0 5, respectively. T hus, w hen read subjects w ere not explicitly instructed how to allocate their processing efforts effectively during study, their later perform ance on a free-recall test suffered in com parison to that of generate subjects w ho, in order to perform the generation task, w ere presum ably alw ays processing target± target relational inform ation regardless of processing instructions. O n the other hand, w hen read subjects w ere directed to allocate their processing efforts in a m anner presum ably sim ilar to the generate subjectsð that is, to engage in target± target relational processingð the generation advantage w as rem oved. Interpreting this pattern of results in term s of the present fram ew ork, the benefit of generating w as to focus processing efforts on the type of inform ation m ost useful to the later free-recall test, nam ely w hole- list or target±target relational inform ation. Indeed, even w hen generate subjects w ere instructed to focus on the p rocessing of cue±target relational inform ation, th ey w ere apparently unable to do so, resulting in sim ilar levels of perform ance for all three types of instructions and a generate advantage in the cue±target and nonspecific processing conditions. G iven that our interp retation of the present pattern of results rests on the assum ption that the generation task prim arily resulted in w hole- list or target± ta rget relatio nal proc essin g, ad ditional supp ort for this assum ption w as desirable. T o this end, w e exam ined the degree to w hich item s from the sam e category w ere grouped together during recall, by calculating category clustering scores for each condition, w ith the idea that subjects prim arily engagin g in w hole-list or target±target relational processing should produce m ore category groupings in their recall than subjects engaging in other types of processing. C lustering. C lustering w as m easured using the adjusted ratio of clustering (A R C ) score (R oenker, T hom pson, & B row n, 1971), and the pattern of clustering results obtained w as identical to that for free recall. For the generate conditions, clustering did not vary w ith type of processing instructions, F (2,1 08) = 1.6 8, M S e = , P >.1 0 (M = 0.6 5, 0.4 7, & 0.6 3, for target±target, cue±target, and nonspecific instructions, respectively); w hereas, for the read conditions, type of processing instruction did have a significant effect on clustering, F (2,1 08) = 9.5 3, M S e = , P <.0 0l (M = 0.59, 0.1 6, & 0.2 6, for target±target, cue±target, and nonspecific instructions, respectively). O verall, significantly m ore clustering occurred w hen subjects w ere given target±target processing instructions than w hen given cue±target or nonspecific processing instru ctions, F (1,1 08 ) = , M S e = ; P <.0 0 1; F (1,1 0 8) = , M S e = , P <.01, respectively. Finally, and m ost im portantly w ith respect to the present set of predictions, although generating resulted in significantly m ore overall clustering than did reading, F (1,1 08) = , M S e = 0.105,

11 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 411 P <.0 01, there w as no difference in the am ount of clustering by generate versus read subjects given target±target processing instructions, F (1,108) = , M S e = , P >.5 0. T hus, the clustering pattern provides converging evidence for the picture presented by the recall results. O verall, clustering scores w ere greater for generate subjects than for read subjects and, in addition, the clustering scores of the generate subjects did not vary in relation to processing instructions. T his pattern supports the contention that, as a consequence of the generation task, generate subjects w ere led to focus their processing efforts on target±target relational inform ation and, furtherm ore, w ere unable to shift this focus to the processing of other types of inform ation even w hen instructed to do so as a w ay to optim ise their later m em ory perform ance. In contrast, the clustering scores for read subjects did vary w ith the type of processing instruction, supporting the contention that read subjects w ould be able to distribute their processing efforts in accordance w ith the processing instructions they received. Finally, the fact that the clustering score for read subjects given target±target processing instructions did not differ from that of the generate subjects supports the conclusion that it w as the read subjects focusing of their processing efforts on target±target relational inform ation that led to the lack of a free-recall generation advantage in this condition. EXPER IM EN T 2 In E xperim ent 1, w hen read subjects w ere given either cue±target or nonspecific processing instructions, a generate advantage w as observed on a later free-recall criterion te st; w he n re ad sub je cts w e re g iv en targe t±ta rg et p ro ce ssing instructions, how ever, w hich presum ably led them to process the stim ulus m aterial in the sam e m anner as the generate subjects, no generate advantage w as observed. In E xperim ent 2, w e investigated w hether a different pattern of generate advantages and non-advantages w ould be obtained w ere a m em ory test less sensitive to target±target relational processing to be given as the later criterion testð specifically, a cued-recall test. If, as w as argued in Experim ent 1, the requirem ent to perform the generation task com bined w ith the nature of the stim ulus m aterials w ould lead generate subjects to focus their processing efforts on target±target relational inform ation, and, if, as w as argued in the introdu ction, cued-recall tests are prim arily sensitive to cue±target relational inform ation and relatively insensitive to target± target relational inform ation, thenð unlike the results of E xperim ent 1Ð little or no generate advantage should be obtained on a later cued-recall test w hen subjects are given target±target or nonspecific processing instructions. M oreover, w hen subjects are given cue±target processing instructions, a read advantage m ight w ell be expected. That is, according to our assum ptions and the results of Experim ent 1, read subjects should be able to m odify their processing efforts in response to the instructions given, w hereas generate subjects w ould

12 412 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK continue to focus on the processing of target±target relational inform ation because of their need to perform the generation task. T hus, in the cue±target relational processing conditions, read subjects should be led to focus on the type of inform ation to w hich the later criterion test is prim arily sensitive, w hereas generate subjects w ill be forced to continue focusing their processing efforts on a type of inform ation to w hich the later criterion test is relatively insensitive. O n the other hand, although generate subjects are prim arily dependent on the processing of target±target relational inform ation to generate targets w ith the present stim ulus m aterials, they m ay also engage in som e m inim al am ount of cue±target relational processing if they feel required to check w hether each generate target also fits w ith the particular cue w ith w hich it w as paired. It is unclear, how ever, w hether such ``post-generation checking w ould be sufficient to offset the advantage read subjects w ould have in being able to focus their processing efforts on cue±target relational inform ation. T o sum m arise, given the sam e stim ulus m aterials as used in E xperim ent 1, w hich w ere constructed to force generate subjects to focus on the processing of target±target relational inform ation in order to perform the generation task, and the use of a cued-recall test, assum ed to be sensitive to cue±target relational inform ation and largely insensitive to target±target relational inform ation, the present fram ew ork w ould lead us to expect the follow ing pattern of results in E xperim ent 2: little or no generation advantage w hen subjects are given target± target relational or nonspecific processing instructions, and a possible read advantage w hen subjects are given cue±target relational processing instructions. A dditionally, as w ith Experim ent 1, the perform ance of generate subjects should not vary as a function of processing instructions, w hereas the perform ance of read subjects should, resulting in best perform ance for read subjects w hen the processing instructions they receive m atch the type of inform ation to w hich the later criterion test is m ost sensitive. In Experim ent 2, then, best perform ance for read subjects should occur w hen cue±target processing instructions are given. M ethod Subjects. T he subjects w ere 116 O berlin C ollege undergraduates w hose participation partially fulfilled an introductory psychology course requirem ent. T hey w ere random ly assigned to each of the six betw een-subjects conditions, w ith the total in each condition being as follow s: 20 in both the generate target± targ et a nd the gen erate no nspecific proce ssing co nditio ns; 19 in th e generate cue±target processing condition; 20 in both the read cue±target and read target±target processing conditions; and 17 in the read nonspecific processing condition. M ateria ls and A pparatus. T he study phase m aterials and the apparatus w ere the sam e as those used in Experim ent 1, but the test booklets contained a

13 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 413 cued-recall rather than a free-recall test. T he first page of the test booklet inform ed subjects about the test on the next page. T he cued-recall test page itself contained the 24 cues presented in a random ly determ ined order that w as held constant for all subjects. A new ordering of the cues at test ensured that subjects could not take advantage of order inform ation to do w ell on the test. N ext to each cue w as a blan k line on w hich subjects w rote the target item that they rem em bered as being paired w ith that cue on the study list. D esign and P rocedure. T he basic design and procedure w ere the sam e as those used in Experim ent 1. The dependent variable in Experim ent 2, how ever, w as perform ance on a later cued-recall test, rather than a later free-recall test. Results and Discussion G eneration R ate. The m ean generation failure rate w as 6.4 %. T he analyses conditionalised on correct target generation at study did not differ from the analyses that w ere unconditional w ith respect to correct generation; thus, only the unconditional analyses are presented here. C ued-recall. Figure 2 presents the m ean percentages of targets that w ere correctly recalled by the generate versus the read subjects as a function of the three types of processing instructions. A s in Fig. 1, the line extending beyond the top of each bar show s the corresponding standard error for that condition. T he data w ere analysed using a tw o-w ay betw een-subjects analysis of variance and planned-com parisons to test the hypotheses. T he apparent interaction betw een encoding task and type of processing instruction indicated in Fig. 2 w as revealed to be significant, F (2,1 10) = 3.1 0, M S e = , P <.0 5. A s predicted the perform ance of generate subjects w as unaffected by processing instructions, F (2,1 10) = 1.3 2, M S e = , P >.20; w hereas the perform ance of read subjects w as significantly influenced by processing instructions, F (2,110) = 7.4 1, M S e = P < A lso, as predicted, read subjects given instructions to focus on the processing of cue± target relational inform ation perform ed significantly better on the cued-recall test than did read subjects given target±target and nonspecific processing in stru ctio ns, F (1,1 10 ) = 8.46, M S e = , P <.0 05; F (1,1 10 ) = , M S e = , P <.001, respectively. W ith respect to the prediction of a possible read advantage w hen both read and generate subjects w ere given cue±target processing instructions, read subjects did perform m arginally better than the corresponding generate subjects, consistent w ith the prediction that read subjects w ould be m ore able to m odify their processing efforts in response to instructions than w ould generate subjects ow ing to the constraints im posed on their processing efforts by the generation task, F (1,110) = 3.2 4, M S e = , P <.0 8. W hen given either target±target or

14 414 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK FIG. 2. M e a n pe rc e nta ge o f co rre c tly re c a lled ta rg e ts o n a c u e d-r ec a ll te st fo r th e ge n e ra te a nd re a d conditions as a fu nction of pro cessing instructions in Experim ent 2. The lines extending beyond the bars represen t stan dard errors. nonspecific processing instructions, how ever, the cued-recall perform ance of the read and generate subjects did not differ, F (1,1 10) = 0.1 6, M S e = , P >.0 5; F (1,1 10) =2.90, M S e = , P >.0 5, respectively. T hus, the pattern of results obtained in E xperim ent 2 are also consistent w ith the contention that read subjects w ould be better able than generate subjects to m odify their allocation of processing resources in accordance w ith processing instructions. First, w hen given instructions that directed them to process the type of inform ation to w hich the later cued-recall test w ould be sensitive, the p erform a n ce o f re ad s ub je cts w as m arg in ally be tter th an tha t of th e corresponding generate subjects and significantly better than that of read subjects given either ta rget±target or nonspecific processing instructions. Second, the perform ance of the generate subjects did not vary as a function of the type of processing instructions given, supporting the assum ption that the requirem ent to generate largely prescribes the allocation of processing resources. T hat is, w hile generate subjects w ere largely forced to continue processing

15 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 415 target±target inform ation at the expense of cue±target inform ation in order to perform the generation task, read subjectsð not being constrained by any generation requirem entsð w ere free to direct their processing efforts to w hatever inform ation they had been told w ould be m ost helpful to them on a later test, resulting in a m arginally significant read advantage w hen instructed to process cue±target relational inform ation. A s contem plated earlier, the failure of the observed read advantage to reach statistical significance in this condition could be due to generate subjects alw ays engaging in som e degree of cue±target relational processing ow ing to the im plicit task dem and to see if a targetð although prim arily generated on the basis of target±target relational inform a- tionð nonetheless fitted w ith its cue. A s an additional check on our prediction that read subjects w ould be m ore able than generate subjects to take advantage of the processing instructions they received, an analysis of cue±target m ispairings w as perform ed. Specifically, w e assum ed that if read subjects w ere able to m odify their processing efforts in response to processing instructions, then they should com m it few er cue±target m ispairings w hen given cue±target processing instructions than w hen given other types of processing instructions; w hereas the num ber of cue±target m ispairings m ade by generate subjects w ould be largely unaffected by the type of processing instructions they received. A dditionally, if read subjects w ere able to engage in m ore cue±target processing than generate subjects w hen both w ere given instructions to process cue±target inform ation in order to optim ise their perform ance on a later cued-recall test, then one m ight expect the read subjects to com m it few er cue±target m ispairings on the later cued-recall test than w ould the generate subjects. C ue± Target M ispairings. T he num ber of tim es that a target w as given in response to a cue other than the cue w ith w hich it had been paired at study w as scored, and these data w ere analysed using a tw o-w ay betw een-subjects analysis of variance and planned-com parisons to test the hypotheses. A significant interaction betw een encoding task and type of instruction w as obtained, F (2,110) = 3.06, M S e = 3.5 4, P <.05. R ead subjects m ade significantly few er target m ispairings w hen given cue±target processing instructions (M = 0.8 0) than w hen given target±target (M = 2.25) or nonspecific processing instructions (M = 2.8 2), F (1,1 10) = 5.94, M S e = 3.5 4, P <.02; F (1,1 10) = , M S e = 3.54, P <.0 02, respectively. In contrast, processing instructions failed to produce a significant difference in the num ber of cue±target m ispairings m ade by generate subjects. In the cue±target, target±target, and nonspecific processing conditions, the m ean num ber of m ispairings w ere 2.1 1, 2.7 0, and 2.82, respectively, F (2,110) = 0.80, M S e = 3.5 4, P >.40. M oreover, consistent w ith our earlier speculations, w hen w e look only at the perform ance of subjects given cue±target processing instructions, the read subjects m ade significantly few er cue±target m ispairings than the subjects required to generate, F (1,110), M S e = 3.5 4, P <.0 5.

16 416 dew INSTANLEY AND BJO RK T he pattern of cue±target m ispairings is thus consistent w ith the picture painted by the cued-recall results. R ead subjects, being unconstrained by the need to generate targets, w ere apparently able to m odify their processing efforts in accordance w ith the instructions given, as evidenced by the significantly few er cue±target m ispairings they m ade w hen given cue±target versus target± target or nonspecific processing instructions. In contrast, even w hen explicitly instructed to process cue±target relational inform ation, generate subjects m ade as m any cue±target m ispairings as w hen given target±target or nonspecific processing instructions, and significantly m ore cue±target m ispairings than read subjects given cue±target processing instructions, consistent w ith our assum p- tion that the need to perform the generation task renders generate subjects inflexible w ith regard to the type of processing in w hich they can engage during study. T hat is, subjects required to generate targets m ust focus on the type of inform ation needed to generate targets, w hich, in the present experim ents, w as target±target or w hole-list relational inform ation. Present R esults GENERAL DIS CUSSIO N T he present research provides new as w ell as corroborative evidence for the m ultifactor transfer-appropriate processing fram ew ork, as originally proposed in dew instanley et al. (1996) and as further elaborated in the present paper. First, consistent w ith the assum ption of this fram ew ork that a generation effect should only be expected w hen a later retention test is sensitive to the inform ation enhanced by the generation task, a generation advantage w as only observed in the present studies w hen the prim ary type of inform ation used as the basis for solving the generation taskð nam ely, target±target relational inform ationð w as the type of inform ation to w hich the later retention test w as sensitiveð nam ely, the free-recall test of E xperim ent 1. Second, the pattern of results obtained across the present tw o experim ents is consistent w ith w hat w e have called the lim ited processing reso urce a ssum ption of this fram ew orkð nam ely, the contention that the processing of one type of inform ation can be, and often is, incom patible w ith the processin g of other types of inform ation. A ccordingly, w hile the requirem ent to generate m ay lead to enhanced processing of the type of inform ation used as the basis for generation, the processing of other types of inform ation is likely to be im paired as a consequence, resulting in either costs or benefits depending on the nature of a later retention test. C onsistent w ith this notion, w hen a cued-recall test w as adm inistered in E xperim ent 2Ð a test assum ed to be prim arily sensitive to cue±target relational inform ation and not sensitive to target±target relational inform ationð no generation advantage w as observed. A dditional, the present results support the currently proposed difference betw een generating and reading as w ays of encoding inform ation. A ccording to

17 P ROCES SIN G IN STRU CTION S 417 this view, the requirem ent to generate results in subjects focusing their processing efforts on w hatev er type of inform ation is m ost helpful in guiding the solution of the generation task; w hereas, w hen reading intact inform ation for the purpose of rem em bering, subjects are m ore free to distribute their processing efforts across the different types of available inform ation. C onsistent w ith this proposed distinction, the perform ance of subjects required to generate did not vary as a function of the processing instructions they received, w hether m easured in term s of free-recall perform ance and category clustering as in Ex perim ent 1 or in term s of cued-recall perform ance and cue±target m ispairings as in E xperim ent 2. In contrast, the perform ance of subjects reading intact inform ation did vary in relation to the processing instructions given, w ith better perform ance being obtained w hen the retention test w as consistent w ith processing instructions. Furtherm ore, w hen, in E xperim ent 1, both read and generate subjects w ere led to focus their processing efforts on the type of inform ation to w hich the later retention test w as prim arily sensitiveð the read subjects by instruction and the generate subjects by the nature of the generation taskð the generation advantage observed in the other tw o instruction conditions w as elim inated. Sim ilarly, w hen, in E xperim ent 2, read subjects w ere led to focus their processing efforts on the type of inform ation to w hich the later retention test w as sensitive, but generate subjects w ere constrained by the nature of the generation task to continue focusing on the processing of target±target relational inform ation, a m arginally significant read advantage w as observed. Previously Reported Results In addition to the present results and those reported by dew instanley et al. (1996), results supporting the proposed m ultifactor transfer-appropriate processing fram ew ork can also be found in a variety of other studies reported in the literature. N ot surprisingly, all findings previously interpreted as supportive of tw o-factor, three-factor, or m ultifactor theories of generation effects (e.g. B urns 1990; H irshm an & B jork, 1988; M cd aniel, R iegler, & W addill, 1990; M cd aniel et al., 1988) can also be interpreted as supportive of the present fram ew ork, given that it w as built on those previous accounts. M ore specifically, how ever, support can also be found in earlier findings for w hat w e have called the lim ited processin g resou rce assu m ption of the p rese nt fram ew o rkð th at is, the contention that the focusing of processing efforts on one type of inform a- tionð w hile enhancing the processing of that inform ationð can be, and often is, incom patible w ith the processing of other types of inform ation leading to costs or benefits, depending on the nature of a later retention test. C on sider, for exam ple, the findings that H irshm an and B jork (19 88) originally regarded as a puzzling outcom e of their research. (See also H irshm an, 1988; and H irshm an, W helley, & Palij, 1989, for a discu ssion of these findings.) A cross four experim ents, H irshm an and B jork found a dissociation betw een