↓ Skip to main content

The Generation Effect or Simply Generating an Effect?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The Generation Effect or Simply Generating an Effect?
Published in
Journal of Comparative Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.1037/a0039450
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Generation Effect is the phenomenon wherein attempting to retrieve or generate information from memory leads to better encoding and retention than passive rehearsal. Kornell and Terrace were the first to provide evidence for the Generation Effect in nonhuman animals, demonstrating that two rhesus monkeys performed markedly worse when tested following a passive learning condition relative to an active learning condition. In Experiment 1, using the same paradigm as Kornell and Terrace, we demonstrate that pigeons also display this effect. However, an assumption underlying the Generation Effect is that, under passive learning conditions, subjects will still display some evidence of learning but less than that displayed in active learning conditions. In Experiment 2, we examined this issue by pretraining pigeons on a list with hints and then comparing their acquisition of that same list to animals that did not receive any pretraining. Again, we found no evidence that pretraining on a list with hints conferred any advantage when learning that list without hints, a manipulation that Kornell and Terrace did not undertake. In summary, our data raise doubts about the evidence for the Generation Effect in nonhuman animals. (PsycINFO Database Record

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Russia 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 20%
Researcher 2 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 60%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2021.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Psychology
#340
of 1,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,039
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Psychology
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.