EXPERIMENT 1 READINGS
Representation in the mental lexicon:
Implications for theories of the generation effect
Three experiments investigated the finding by McElroy and Slamecka (1982) that the "generation effect" (the retention advantage for self-produced over read items) is not obtained when artificial, meaningless nonwords are used as the to-be-remembered items.
In Experiment 1, some subjects were asked to generate or read items that they thought were words, but, in fact, were not; no generation effect was found.
In Experiment 2, subjects were taught definitions to experimenter-created items. Despite the fact that these subjects could readily retrieve each item's assigned semantic properties, no generation effect was found.
Experiment 3 examined the read/generate variable as a function of an item's frequency of use in the language.
Whereas medium- and high-frequency words produced large generation effects, no comparable effects were found for low-frequency words or nonwords. These results indicate that representation in the mental lexicon is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the generation effect. Rather, it may be necessary to consider how related the generated item is to other potential retrieval cues in the memory system.
( it was highlighted that semantic meaning was not enough to produce a generation effect. Nairne et al suggested that word association, not just lexicon entry, in the mental lexicon
May be another factor in the production of the generation effect. Therefore a word may have several associations in the mental lexicon retrievable by cues, which trigger the recall of specific words.

In a number of recent studies, a retention advantage has been demonstrated for items that are self-produced, rather than read, by subjects during the study phase of a memory
Experiment
This advantage, which is referred to as the "generation effect," does not depend exclusively upon the use of "deep" or semantic production rules; rather, the effect remains quite robust across wide variations in generation rules (e.g., semantic, rhyme, orthographic) and methods of retention testing
(e.g., cued recall, free recall, recognition).

Following a recent discussion by McElroy and
Slamecka (1982), we can outline two main classes of explanation:
(1) those interpretations that appeal to the special involvement of lexical memory processes during generation (e.g., Donaldson & Bass, 1980; Graf, 1980;
Siamecka & Graf, 1978) and (2) accounts that refer primarily to the effortful nature of the act of generation, with no special reliance upon lexical memory involvement
(Griffith, 1976; McFarland et aI., 1980).
By lexical or semantic memory, we are referring simply to a person's preexisting knowledge about verbal information, including, in particular, words and their corresponding definitions.

Thus, we can ask, does the generation advantage result from searching and then accessing an entry in the mental lexicon? Or, does generation require the subject simply to spend more time and effort, than does reading, and this may translate into a stronger and more accessible memory trace
( Address this question in report)

Presumably, producing a word demands more processing effort than reading does, and this may translate into a stronger or more accessible memory trace
(Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979)
In contrast,
Increased "mental work" may be of little value unless it acts to integrate an existing lexical entry with other entries in an established lexical network.

REFER TO JOURNAL ARTICLE FOLDER FROM HERE