Retrieval-induced forgetting and interference between cues: Training a cue–outcome association attenuates retrieval by alternative cues (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2003
Intentionally forgotten information remains in memory at essentially full strength, as measured by recognition and priming, but access to that information is impaired, as measured by recall. Given that pattern, it seemed plausible that intentionally forgotten information might have a greater impact on certain subsequent judgments than would intentionally remembered information. In 2 experiments, participants cued to forget nonfamous names were subsequently more likely to make false attributions of fame to those names than were participants instructed to remember them. These findings implicate retrieval inhibition as a potent factor in the interplay of recollection and priming in memory and judgment. They also point to possible unintended consequences of instructions to forget, suppress, or disregard in legal or social settings.
A progress report on the inhibitory account of retrieval-induced forgetting
Memory & Cognition, 2012
Remembering and forgetting reflect fundamentally interdependent processes in human memory (Bjork, 2011). This interdependency is particularly apparent in research on retrieval-induced forgetting, which has shown that retrieving a subset of information can cause the forgetting of other information (Anderson et al.
Remembering Can Cause Inhibition: Retrieval-Induced Inhibition as Cue Independent Process
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2004
Previous experiments have mostly relied on recall as a dependent measure to assess whether retrieval of information from memory causes inhibition of related information. This study aimed to measure this inhibition in a more direct way. In Experiment 1, it was shown that repeated retrieval of exemplars from a category resulted in longer recognition latencies to nonretrieved exemplars from that same category, compared with recognition latencies to control exemplars. Experiment 2 obtained the same pattern of results using a lexical decision task. This was the 1st time that retrieval-induced forgetting was demonstrated on an implicit test of memory. To exclude noninhibitory explanations of the data, the exemplars were presented in both experiments without their categories as cues.
When intended remembering leads to unintended forgetting
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2007
As a means of clarifying the memory dynamics that underlie retrieval-induced forgetting, we explored how instructing participants either to remember or to forget a previously presented list of items influences the susceptibility of those items to inhibition. According to the inhibitory ...
Is Forgetting Caused by Inhibition?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2013
A well-known finding in memory research is the forgetting effect that occurs due to practicing some item A on the recall of a related item B. The traditional explanation for such interference effects is based on the notion of competition. According to the inhibition theory of forgetting, however, such forgetting is due to an inhibitory control process that operates whenever the retrieval of specific target information is hindered by competition from related information. The suppression of the related information is a longer-lasting phenomenon that may show up on later testing. We report several experiments that were carried out to test two fundamental assumptions of the inhibition theory, the interference dependence and retrieval specificity assumptions. The results of these experiments do not support the predictions of the inhibition theory. Instead, the results are more compatible with the standard account that attributes the forgetting to competition at the time of the later testing.
Transfer Appropriate Forgetting: The Cue-Dependent Nature of Retrieval-Induced Forgetting.
Retrieval-induced forgetting is the failure to recall a previously studied word following repeated retrieval of a related item. It has been argued that this is due to retrieval competition between practiced and unpracticed items, which results in inhibition of the non-recalled item, detectable with an independent cue at final test. Three experiments were conducted in which two cues were associated with a target item at encoding. All three studies demonstrated retrieval-induced forgetting when the same retrieval cue was present at practice and test, but not when the second encoding cue was used as an independent probe at final test. These data are not compatible with a general inhibitory account of retrievalinduced forgetting, but support a context-specific account of the phenomenon.