Abstract
The self-generation effect refers to the finding that people’s memory for information tends to be better when they generate it themselves. Counterintuitively, when proofreading, this effect may make it more difficult to detect mistakes in one’s own writing than in others’ writing. We investigated the self-generation effect and sources of individual differences in proofreading performance in two eye-tracking experiments. Experiment 1 failed to reveal a self-generation effect. Experiment 2 used a studying manipulation to induce overfamiliarity for self-generated text, revealing a weak but non-significant self-generation effect. Overall, word errors (i.e., wrong words) were detected less often than non-word errors (i.e., misspellings), and function word errors were detected less often than content word errors. Fluid intelligence predicted proofreading performance, whereas reading comprehension, working memory capacity, processing speed, and indicators of miserly cognitive processing did not. Students who made more text fixations and spent more time proofreading detected more errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data
Data and materials will be made available upon request.
Notes
We thank David MacFarlane for his help developing the proofreading program.
References
Arrington, C. N., Kulesz, P. A., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. A. (2014). The contribution of attentional control and working memory to reading comprehension and decoding. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(5), 325–346.
Barach, E., Gloskey, L., & Sheridan, H. (2021). Satisfaction-of-Search (SOS) impacts multiple-target searches during proofreading: Evidence from eye movements. Visual Cognition, 29, 510–518.
Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-denny reading test forms G&H. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Altmann, E. M. (2019). Is working memory capacity a causal factor in fluid intelligence? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1333–1339. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01606-9
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586613
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.
Daneman, M., & Stainton, M. (1993). The generation effect in reading and proofreading. Reading and Writing, 5, 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027393
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Dover.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harmon, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Furnham, A. (2010). Proofreading as an index of crystallised intelligence. Educational Psychology, 30, 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.506005
Furnham, A., Rawles, R., & Iqbal, S. (2006). Personality, intelligence and proof-reading. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.025
Gallagher, D. J., & Hall, S. J. (1992). Proof-reading performance of extraverts and neurotics under punishment and reward conditions. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(2), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90047-S
Hyönä, J., & Niemi, P. (1990). Eye movements during repeated reading of a text. Acta Psychologica, 73, 259–280. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0001-6918(90)90026-C
Inhoff, A. W., Topolski, R., Vitu, F., & O’Regan, J. K. (1993). Attention demands during reading and the occurrence of brief (express) fixations. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 814–823. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211806
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Greenwood Press.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2010). Task effects on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1561–1566. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020693
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39, 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676
Levy, B. A. (1983). Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing. Memory & Cognition, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197655
Levy, B. A., Newell, S., Snyder, J., & Timmins, K. (1986). Processing changes across reading encounters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(4), 467–478. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.467
Oswald, F. L., McAbee, S. T., Redick, T. S., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2015). The development of a short domain-general measure of working memory capacity. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1343–1355. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0543-2
Paterson, K. B., McGowan, V. A., Warrington, K. L., Li, L., Li, S., Xie, F., Chang, M., Zhao, S., Pagán, A., White, S., & Wang, J. (2020). Effects of normative aging on eye movements during reading. Vision, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision4010007
Pilotti, M., & Chodorow, M. (2009). Error detection/correction in collaborative writing. Reading and Writing, 22, 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9110-x
Raney, G. E., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2000). Repetition effects from paraphrased text: Evidence for an integrated representation model of text representation. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_4
Raven, J., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 763–776. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.763
Schmauder, A. R., Morris, R. K., & Poynor, D. V. (2000). Lexical processing and text integration of function and content words: Evidence from priming and eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1098–1108. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211811
Schotter, E. R., Bicknell, K., Howard, I., Levy, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Task effects reveal cognitive flexibility responding to frequency and predictability: Evidence from eye movements in reading and proofreading. Cognition, 131, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.018
SR Research Ltd. (2010). Eyelink 1000 users’ manual, version 1.5. Mississauga
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
Funding
This research was funded by the Future Academic Scholars in Teaching Fellowship awarded to Alexander P. Burgoyne.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burgoyne, A.P., Saba-Sadiya, S., Harris, L.J. et al. Revisiting the self-generation effect in proofreading. Psychological Research 87, 800–815 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01699-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01699-3