Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall q Philip A. Higham * , Helen Tam School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK Received 9 August 2004; revision received 20 January 2005 Abstract Three experiments examined generation, recognition, and response bias in the original encoding-specificity paradigm using the type 2 signal-detection analysis advocated by Higham (2002). Experiments 1 (pure-list design) and 2 (mixed- list design) indicated that some guidance regarding the strength of the associative relationship between the test cue and target greatly improved strong-cue target production relative to no guidance, and that this effect was attributable to improved generation, as well as recognition. Problems with generating candidates for response during standard cued recall was further shown in Experiment 3, where despite having the opportunity to provide multiple responses for each cue, participantsÕ ability to produce the targets remained poor. The results are discussed in terms of traditional and modern generate-recognize theory, metacognition, and dual-route models of recall. Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Cued recall; Generate-recognize; Metacognition; Encoding specificity Since Tulving and colleagues introduced the encod- ing specificity principle in the early 1970s (e.g., Thomson & Tulving, 1970; Tulving & Thomson, 1973), most stu- dents of memory have viewed generate-recognize theory as a straw man. It is considered by many to be an old- fashioned theory, with a particular failing when it comes to explaining context reinstatement effects in cued recall. In this paper, we revisit both generate-recognize theory and the classic cued-recall paradigm that provided the initial support for the encoding-specificity principle. However, let us be clear at the outset that we are not attempting to resurrect traditional generate-recognize theory. Indeed, as will become apparent, the data from the experiments that we report are quite inconsistent with those early models, and, if anything, they support many aspects of TulvingÕs message. On the other hand, we will argue that a more modern generate-recognize model of cued recall that maintains the crucial distinc- tion between memory access (generation) and metacog- nitive monitoring (recognition) processes is still a useful framework for cued-recall performance, and per- formance on many other tasks as well. In this way, our message is similar to that of other metacognitive researchers who have promoted two-stage models involving separate stages of access and memory moni- 0749-596X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.015 q Philip A. Higham and Helen Tam, School of Psychology, University of Southampton. Preparation of this article was supported by a research grant from the British Academy. Portions of this research were presented at the 43rd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November, 2002 in Kansas City, Missouri, USA, and at the 45th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November, 2004 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. We thank Nina Eskriett, Wendy Kneller and David Brook for research assistance. We thank Harry Bahrick, Chuck Brainerd, Morris Goldsmith, Asher Koriat, Steve Lindsay, Doug Nelson, and Mike Watkins for helpful com- ments on earlier drafts of this article. * Corresponding author. Fax: +44 23 8059 4597. E-mail address: higham@soton.ac.uk (P.A. Higham). Journal of Memory and Language xxx (2005) xxx–xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/jml Journal of Memory and Language ARTICLE IN PRESS