Describes search of associative memory (SAM), a general theory of retrieval from long-term memory that combines features of associative network models and random search models. It posits cue-dependent probabilistic sampling and recovery from an associative network, but the network is specified as a retrieval structure rather than a storage structure. A quantitative computer simulation of SAM was developed and applied to the part-list cuing paradigm. When free recall of a list of words was cued by a random subset of words from that list, the probability of recalling one of the remaining words was less than if no cues were provided at all. SAM predicted this effect in all its variations by making extensive use of interword associations in retrieval, a process that previous theorizing has dismissed. (55 ref)

Search of associative memory.

Three studies show that the retrieval process itself causes long-lasting forgetting. Ss studied 8 categories (e.g., Fruit). Half the members of half the categories were then repeatedly practiced through retrieval tests (e.g., Fruit Or ). Category-cued recall of unpracticed members of practiced categories was impaired on a delayed test. Experiments 2 and 3 identified 2 significant features of this retrieval-induced forgetting: The impairment remains when output interference is controlled, suggesting a retrieval-base d suppression that endures for 20 min or more, and the impairment appears restricted to high-frequenc y members. Low-frequency members show little impairment, even in the presence of strong, practiced competitors that might be expected to block access to those items. These findings suggest a critical role for suppression in models of retrieval inhibition and implicate the retrieval process itself in everyday forgetting. A striking implication of current memory theory is that the very act of remembering may cause forgetting. It is not that the remembered item itself becomes more susceptible to forgetting; in fact, recalling an item increases the likelihood that it will be recallable again at a later time. Rather, it is other items—items that are associated to the same cue or cues guiding retrieval—that may be put in greater jeopardy of being forgotten. Impaired recall of such related items may arise if access to them is blocked by the newly acquired strength of their successfully retrieved competitors (Blaxton & Neely, 1983; Brown, 1981; Brown, Whiteman, Cattoi, & Bradley, 1985; Roediger, 1974, 1978; Roediger & Schmidt, 1980; Rundus, 1973). This implication follows from three assumptions underlying what we herein refer to as strength-dependent competition models of interference: (a) the competition assumption—that memories associated to a common cue compete for access to conscious recall when that cue is presented; (b) the strengthdependence assumption—that the cued recall of an item will decrease as a function of increases in the strengths of its

Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory

A model called search for ideas in associative memory (SIAM) is proposed to account for various research findings in the area of group idea generation. The model assumes that idea generation is a repeated search for ideas in associative memory, which proceeds in 2 stages (knowledge activation and idea production), and is controlled through negative feedback loops and cognitive failures (trials in which no idea is generated). We show that (a) turn taking (production blocking) interferes with both stages of the process; (b) ideas suggested by others aid the activation of problem-relevant knowledge; and (c) cognitive failures are important determinants of brainstorming persistence, satisfaction, and enjoyment. Implications for group decision making and group recall are discussed.

How the Group Affects the Mind

Because of personal motives and the architecture of the mind, it may be difficult for people to know themselves. People often attempt to block out unwanted thoughts and feelings through conscious suppression and perhaps through unconscious repression, though whether such attempts are successful is controversial. A more common source of self-knowledge failure is the inaccessibility of much of the mind to consciousness, including mental processes involved in perception, motor learning, personality, attitudes, and self-esteem. Introspection cannot provide a direct pipeline to these mental processes, though some types of introspection may help people construct beneficial personal narratives. Other ways of increasing self-knowledge include looking at ourselves through the eyes of others and observing our own behavior. These approaches can potentially promote self-knowledge, although major obstacles exist. It is not always advantageous to hold self-perceptions that correspond perfectly with reality, but increasing awareness of nonconscious motives and personality is generally beneficial.

Self-Knowledge: Its Limits, Value, and Potential for Improvement

Communication, Learning, and Retrieval in Transactive Memory Systems☆☆☆

Directed forgetting has been studied by instructing Ss to forget either (a) an initial list or (b) individually selected words. Differential encoding was hypothesized to be responsible for word-method directed forgetting, and retrieval inhibition for list-method directed forgetting. In Experiments 1 and 2, directed forgetting was observed in recognition with the word method but not with the list method. Release from directed forgetting occurred in final recall after recognition but only with the list method. These results are interpreted in terms of a theoretical framework that integrates distinctive-relational processing theory with revised generation-recognition theory. In Experiments 1-3, predictions from that framework were generally well supported on implicit and explicit retention tests that provided the same stimulus conditions

Directed forgetting in implicit and explicit memory tests: A comparison of methods.

M S Weldon and K D Bellinger (1997) showed that people who collaborate on a recall test (collaborative group) perform much more poorly than the same number of people tested individually (nominal group) Four experiments tested the hypothesis that retrieval-strategy disruption underlies this collaborative inhibition when categorized lists are studied Collaborative groups performed worse than nominal groups when categories were large (Experiment 1) and when category names were provided at recall (Experiment 2) However, collaborative- and nominal-group recall were equivalent when participants retrieved nonoverlapping parts of the list (Experiment 3) and when participants were forced to organize their recall by category (Experiment 4) Clearly, disorganized retrieval can account for collaborative inhibition with the materials and procedures used here

A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?

Collaborative inhibition, the poorer memory performance of collaborative groups as compared with nominal (noninteracting) groups was measured in the free recall of categorized lists. In Experiment 1, collaborative inhibition was present in four-person groups, but not in pairs of two-person groups, where each was compared with performance in four-person nominal groups. However, on a final individual free recall test, members of two- and four-person collaborative groups recalled a higher proportion of the list than members of nominal groups. In Experiment 2, recall in three-person collaborative groups was less than in three-person nominal groups but only on the first of three successive study-test trials. On the final individual free recall test, members of collaborative groups recalled more words than members of nominal groups. Despite inhibiting recall and reminiscence, collaboration benefits remembering when collaborators are subsequently tested individually. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

David R. Basden

Papers

Directed forgetting in implicit and explicit memory tests: A comparison of methods.

A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies?

Costs and benefits of collaborative remembering

Some tests of the strategy disruption interpretation of part-list cuing inhibition.

Directed forgetting: A contrast of methods and interpretations.