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

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 142, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-5

  Fawcett, Jonathan M ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Between subjects; Distinctiveness; Human memory; Meta analysis; Production effect

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; LONG TERM MEMORY; META ANALYSIS; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; READING; RECOGNITION; SPEECH;

HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH;

EID: 84868650569     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Begg I., Snider A. The generation effect: Evidence for generalized inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1987, 13(4):553-563. 10.1037//0278-7393.13.4.553.
2. Borenstein M. The shift from significance testing to effect size estimation. Comprehensive Clinical Psychology 2000, Volume 3:313-349. Pergamon, Oxford, UK.
3. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P.T., Rothstein H.R. Introduction to meta-analysis 2010, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
4. Bushman B.J., Wang M.C. Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis 2009, 207-220. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Second Edition. H. Cooper, L.V. Hedges, J.C. Valentine (Eds.).
5. *Dodson C.S., Schacter D.L. "If I had said it I would have remembered it": Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8(1):155-161.
6. Fawcett J.M., Russell E.J., Peace K.A., Christie J. Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the "weapon focus" literature. Psychology, Crime & Law 2011, 10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325.
7. *Gathercole S.E., Conway M.a Exploring long-term modality effects: Vocalization leads to best retention. Memory & Cognition 1988, 16(2):110-119. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3352516.
8. Hedges L.V. Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin 1982, 92(2):490-499. 10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.490.
9. Hedges L.V., Olkin I. Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 1980, 88(2):359-369. American Psychological Association. 10.1037//0033-2909.88.2.359.
10. Hedges L.V., Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis 1985, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
11. *Hopkins R., Boylan R., Lincoln G.L. Pronunciation and apparent frequency. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1972, 11:105-113.
12. *Hopkins R., Edwards R. Pronunciation effects in recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1972, 11(4):534-537. 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80036-7.
13. Hourihan K.L., Macleod C.M. Directed forgetting meets the production effect: distinctive processing is resistant to intentional forgetting. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 62(4):242-246. 10.1037/1196-1961.62.4.242.
14. Hunt R.R., Worthen J.B. Distinctiveness and memory 2006, Oxford University Press, New York.
15. Light R.J., Smith P.V. Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educational Review 1971, 41(4):429-471.
16. *MacLeod C.M., Gopie N., Hourihan K.L., Neary K.R., Ozubko J.D. The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36(3):671-685. 10.1037/a0018785.
17. Major, J. C., & MacLeod, C. M. (2008). Recognition test performance in production. Unpublished raw data.
18. McDaniel M.A., Dornburg C.C., Guynn M.J. Disentangling encoding versus retrieval explanations of the bizarreness effect: Implications for distinctiveness. Memory & Cognition 2005, 33(2):270-279.
19. McDaniel M.A., Geraci L. Encoding and retrieval processes in distinctiveness: Toward an integrative framework. Distinctiveness and memory 2006, 65-88. Oxford University Press, New York. R.R. Hunt, J.B. Worthen (Eds.).
20. Orwin R.G. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics 1983, 8(2):157-159.
21. Ozubko J.D., Gopie N., MacLeod C.M. Production benefits both recollection and familiarity. Memory & Cognition 2011, 10.3758/s13421-011-0165-1.
22. Ozubko, J. D., & Macleod, C. M. (2009). Recognition test performance in production. Unpublished raw data.
23. *Ozubko J.D., Macleod C.M. The production effect in memory: Evidence that distinctiveness underlies the benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36(6):1543-1547. 10.1037/a0020604.
24. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria 2010.
25. Rosenberg M.S. The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 2005, 59:464-468.
26. Rosenthal R. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86:638-641.
27. Schmidt S.R. Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?. Memory & Cognition 1991, 19(6):523-542. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1758300.
28. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010, 36(3):1-48.
29. Wickelgren W.A. Associative strength theory of recognition memory for pitch. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1969, 6:13-61.