Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott & McDaniel (2007), Memory & Cognition 35(2) — 86-study generation-effect meta: d ≈ 0.40 ("almost half a standard deviation"); LARGER at longer retention (d ≈ 0.64 for >1 day)
Created 2026-06-20
Summary
Claim: Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott & McDaniel (2007), Memory & Cognition 35(2), 201-210 — 86-study meta-analysis, 445 effect sizes. Canonical effect size: d ≈ 0.40 ("almost half a standard deviation"). LARGER at longer retention intervals: d ≈ 0.64 for >1 day vs. ~0.32 immediate.
Source: Bertsch et al. (2007), Memory & Cognition.
Confidence: Verified (meta-analysis).
Why this matters for Candid: The single citable effect size for generation. d ≈ 0.40 is the number to use in client conversations. The "larger at longer retention" finding means tools that surface user-generated content (e.g., a saved configuration) retain memory benefit beyond the session.
Related entries
Referenced by (5)
- research-notes Research notes (capture-layer top-up): why interactive online tools are psychologically engaging — six additional mechanisms (June 2026) relates-to
- reference Text-generation meta-analysis (Educational Psychology Review 2023) — Hedges g ≈ .41; LARGEST for 301-600 word texts; NO EFFECT beyond ~900 words relates-to
- reference CAVEAT — 2025 conceptual replication (Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications) — generation effect did NOT reliably transfer to learning from expository text; some experiments showed disadvantage relates-to
- reference Caveats for the engagement-mechanisms top-up: strong independent evidence sits at the MECHANISM level not the business-outcome level; nearly every effect is moderated relates-to
- rule R4 — Where appropriate, make the user GENERATE inputs (not just pick from menus) — the generation effect d≈0.40 is real but ceilings beyond ~900 words and doesn't scale to expository text depends-on