Intentional forgetting of actions: Comparison of list-method and item-method directed forgetting
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used the item-method of directed forgetting and obtained greater directed forgetting for VTs than SPTs, but only in the primacy region for SPTs.
About: This article is published in Journal of Memory and Language.The article was published on 2009-07-01. It has received 70 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Forgetting & Serial position effect.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review the claim that the inhibition theory provides a better account of forgetting than more traditional competition-based theories and conclude that the theoretical status of inhibition as an explanation for interference and forgetting is problematic.
123 citations
TL;DR: Results of two experiments support a context-change account of the amnesic effects of daydreaming, which suggests that daydreams that are more different from the current moment will result in more forgetting than daydreamed that are less different fromThe current moment.
Abstract: Daydreaming mentally transports people to another place or time. Many daydreams are similar in content to the thoughts that people generate when they intentionally try to forget. Thus, thoughts like those generated during daydreaming can cause forgetting of previously encoded events. We conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that daydreams that are more different from the current moment (e.g., in distance, time, or circumstance) will result in more forgetting than daydreams that are less different from the current moment, because they result in a greater contextual shift. Daydreaming was simulated in the laboratory via instructions to engage in a diversionary thought. Participants learned a list of words, were asked to think about autobiographical memories, and then learned a second list of words. They tended to forget more words from the first list when they thought about their parents' home than when they thought about their current home (Experiment 1). They also tended to forget more when they thought about an international vacation than when they thought about a domestic vacation (Experiment 2). These results support a context-change account of the amnesic effects of daydreaming.
99 citations
Cites methods from "Intentional forgetting of actions: ..."
...In addition, each technique requires new learning to take place in order to produce forgetting (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2007), and each results in similar serial-position effects in recall (Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors demonstrate that all three forms of release from proactive interference are accompanied by a decrease in participants' response latencies, which suggest that release can reflect more focused memory search, with the previously studied nontarget items being largely eliminated from the search process.
84 citations
Additional excerpts
...The size of the PI effect observed in Experiment 1A was typical for 2-list paradigms, being on the order of 10–15% with regard to response totals (e.g., Bjork & Bjork, 1996; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: A 2-mechanism account of directed forgetting is suggested, according to which List 1 forgetting reflects reduced accessibility of List 1 items, and List 2 enhancement arises from a reset of encoding processes.
Abstract: In list-method directed forgetting participants are cued to intentionally forget a previously studied list (List 1) before encoding a subsequently presented list (List 2). Compared with remember-cued participants, forget-cued participants typically show impaired recall of List 1 and improved recall of List 2, referred to as List 1 forgetting and List 2 enhancement. In three experiments, we examined how amount of postcue encoding influences directed forgetting. Two results emerged dissociating List 1 forgetting from List 2 enhancement. First, an increase in amount of postcue encoding led to an increase in List 1 forgetting but did not affect List 2 enhancement. Second, the forget cue influenced all List 1 items but affected only early List 2 items. A two-mechanism account of directed forgetting is suggested, according to which List 1 forgetting reflects reduced accessibility of List 1 items, and List 2 enhancement arises from a reset of encoding processes.
82 citations
Cites methods or result from "Intentional forgetting of actions: ..."
...One reason for the variance in results might be that, in the two recent studies, item lists were broken into bins spanning two (Lehman & Malmberg, 2009) or even four serial positions (Sahakyan & Foster, 2009), whereas in the present study list positions were not categorized....
[...]
...Whereas in the present experiments List 2 enhancement was restricted to the first four items of the list, in the two previous studies, enhancement effects arose for the first six items (Lehman & Malmberg, 2009) or even the first eight items (Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
...Although the serial position results of List 1 forgetting are consistent with those of prior reports, the serial position results of List 2 enhancement differ slightly from two recent observations (Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
...This finding is in line with previous studies, suggesting that List 1 forgetting is not restricted to any subgroup of the list’s items (Geiselman et al., 1983; Kimball & Bjork, 2002; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors provide an up-to-date review of the twenty-first century research and theory on list-method directed forgetting (DF) and related phenomena like the context-change effect.
Abstract: The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide an up-to-date review of the twenty-first century research and theory on list-method directed forgetting (DF) and related phenomena like the context-change effect. Many researchers have assumed that DF is diagnostic of inhibition, but we argue for an alternative, noninhibitory account and suggest reinterpretation of earlier findings. We first describe what DF is and the state of the art with regard to measuring the effect. Then, we review recent evidence that brings DF into the family of effects that can be explained by global memory models. The process-based theory we advocate is that the DF impairment arises from mental context change and that the DF benefits emerge mainly but perhaps not exclusively from changes in encoding strategy. We review evidence (some new to this paper) that strongly suggests that DF arises from the engagement of controlled forgetting strategies that are independent of whether people believed the forget cue or not. Then we describe the vast body of literature supporting that forgetting strategies result in contextual change effects, as well as point out some inconsistencies in the DF literature that need to be addressed in future research. Next, we provide evidence—again, some of it new to this chapter—that the reason people show better memory after a forget cue is that they change encoding strategies. In addition to reviewing the basic research with healthy population, we reinterpret the evidence from the literature on certain clinical populations, providing a critique of the work done to date and outlining ways of improving the methodology for the study of DF in special populations. We conclude with a critical discussion of alternative approaches to understanding DF.
76 citations
Cites background from "Intentional forgetting of actions: ..."
...We identified five published DF studies that examined serial position functions in DF (Geiselman et al., 1983; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009)....
[...]
...…& Sahakyan, 2007), across age-related differences (Aslan & Bäuml, 2008; Sahakyan, Delaney, & Goodmon, 2008), across serial position effects (Sahakyan & Foster, 2009), and the boundary conditions that determine whether DF is obtained, such as the need for L2 learning (Pastötter & Bäuml,…...
[...]
...Note that Sahakyan and Foster (2009) obtained equivalent DF impairment across L1 serial position curves of performed actions phrases which typically do not produce primacy effects, suggesting that the magnitude of DF impairment may not be linked to the primacy effects....
[...]
...…of serial position functions (Geiselman, Bjork, & Fishman, 1983; Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009; Sheard & MacLeod, 2005), intrusion errors (Lehman & Malmberg, 2009; Sahakyan & Delaney, 2010; Spillers & Unsworth, 2011),…...
[...]
...…serial position functions did not obtain greater DF costs from the primacy region of L1 curve (e.g. Pastötter & Bäuml, 2010; Pastötter et al., 2012; Sahakyan & Foster, 2009), whereas studies that reported serial position curves without formal analyses (or deviation measures) obtained greater DF…...
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The Oxford Handbook of Memory as mentioned in this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the field of memory research, including the development of memory, the contents of memory in the laboratory and in everyday use, memory in decline, the organization of memory and theories of memory.
Abstract: Due to the advent of neuropsychology, it has become clear that there is a multiplicity of memory systems or, at the very least, of dissociably different modes of processing memory in the brain. As the Oxford Handbook of Memory demonstrates, the frontier of memory research has been enriched by breakthroughs of the last decades, with lines of continuity and important departures, and it will continue to be enriched by changes in technology that will propel future research. In turn, such changes are beginning to impact the legal and professional therapeutic professions and will have considerable future significance in realms outside of psychology and memory research. Endel Tulving and Fergus Craik, two world-class experts on memory, provide this handbook as a roadmap to the huge and unwieldy field of memory research. By enlisting an eminent group of researchers, they are able to offer insight into breakthroughs for the work that lies ahead. The outline is comprehensive and covers such topics as the development of memory, the contents of memory, memory in the laboratory and in everyday use, memory in decline, the organization of memory, and theories of memory.
1,583 citations
TL;DR: A model for response latency and the latencies of correct and incorrect responses in recognition memory and an interpretation of reaction time in information processing research are presented.
Abstract: ion of categorical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207238. Mclcalfe, J., & Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1981). An encoding and retrieval model of single-trial free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 161-189. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect in free recall. Journal oj Experimental Psychology, 64, 482488. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1974). Human memory: Theory and data. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626. Murdock, B. B., Jr., & Anderson, R. E. (1975). Encoding, storage and retrieval of item information. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Murdock, B. B., Jr., & Dufty, P. O. (1972). Strength theory and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 284-290. Muter, P. (in press). Recognition and recall of words with a single meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Nairnc, J. S. (1983). Associative processing during rote rehearsal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 3-20. Neely, J. H., & Balota, D. A. (1981). Test expectancy and semantic organization effects in recall and recognition. Memory and Cognition, 9, 283-306. Neely, J. H., Schmidt, S. R., & Roediger, H. L. III. (1983). Inhibition from related primes in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 196-211. Nelson, D. L., & Davis, M. J. (1972). Transfer and false recognitions based on phonetic identities of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 347-353. Norman, D. A., & Wickelgren, W. A. (1969). Strength theory of decision rules and latency in short-term memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 192-208. Okada, R., & Burrows, D. (1973). Organizational factors in high-speed scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 77-81. Pachella, R. G. (1974). An interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pike, R. (1973). Response latency models for signal detection. Psychological Review, 80, 53-68. Pike, R., Dalglcish, L., & Wright, J. (1977). A multipleobservations model for response latency and the latencies of correct and incorrect responses in recognition memory. Memory and Cognition, 5, 580-589. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiflrin, R. M. (1980). SAM: A theory of probabilistic search of associative memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 14). New York: Academic Press. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shifrrin, R. M. (1981a). Order effects in recall. In A. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance(Vol. 9). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (198Ib). Search of Associative Memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-
1,492 citations
"Intentional forgetting of actions: ..." refers background in this paper
...…items to memory, people encode not only the meaning of the item and the inter-item relationships, but they additionally encode the context in which the item occurred – an assumption made by many memory models (e.g., Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984; Mensink & Raaijmakers, 1988; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997)....
[...]
TL;DR: A critical role for suppression in models of retrieval inhibition and a retrieval-induced forgetting that implicate the retrieval process itself in everyday forgetting are suggested.
Abstract: 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
1,377 citations
"Intentional forgetting of actions: ..." refers background in this paper
...In retrieval-induced forgetting, for example, highly interfering competing items suffered greater impairment than weakly interfering items (Anderson et al., 1994)....
[...]
Book•
14 Jan 2014
TL;DR: This book discusses encoding and Retrieval Processes, Modularity and Dissociations in Memory Systems, and the Relation Between Memory and Consciousness: Dissociable Interactions and Conscious Experience.
Abstract: Contents: Part I:Encoding and Retrieval Processes. H.L. Roediger, III, M.S. Weldon, B.H. Challis, Explaining Dissociations Between Implicit and Explicit Measures of Retention: A Processing Account. F.I.M. Craik, On the Making of Episodes. M.J. Watkins, Willful and Nonwillful Determinants of Memory. R. Ratcliff, G. McKoon, Memory Models, Text Processing, and Cue-Dependent Retrieval. B.B. Murdock, Jr., The Past, the Present, and the Future: Comments on Section 1. Part II:Neuropsychology. L. Weiskrantz, Remembering Dissociations. L.S. Cermak, Synergistic Ecphory and the Amnesic Patient. M. Moscovitch, Confabulation and the Frontal Systems: Strategic Versus Associative Retrieval in Neuropsychological Theories of Memory. D.S. Olton, Inferring Psychological Dissociations from Experimental Dissociations: The Temporal Context of Episodic Memory. M. Kinsbourne, The Boundaries of Episodic Remembering: Comments on the Second Section. Part III:Classification Systems for Memory. J.R. Anderson, A Rational Analysis of Human Memory. D. Broadbent, Lasting Representations and Temporary Processes. J.H. Neely, Experimental Dissociations and the Episodic/Semantic Memory Distinction. R.G. Crowder, Modularity and Dissociations in Memory Systems. L-G. Nilsson, Classification of Human Memory: Comments on the Third Section. Part IV:Consciousness, Emotion, and Memory. R.A. Bjork, Retrieval Inhibition as an Adaptive Mechanism in Human Memory. E. Eich, Theoretical Issues in State Dependent Memory. D.L. Schacter, On the Relation Between Memory and Consciousness: Dissociable Interactions and Conscious Experience. L.L. Jacoby, C.M. Kelley, J. Dywan, Memory Attributions. R.S. Lockhart, Consciousness and the Function of Remembered Episodes: Comments on the Fourth Section.
1,097 citations
TL;DR: It is shown that executive control processes not uniquely tied to trauma may provide a viable model for repression, and that this cognitive act has enduring consequences for the rejected memories.
Abstract: Freud proposed that unwanted memories can be forgotten by pushing them into the unconscious, a process called repression1. The existence of repression has remained controversial for more than a century, in part because of its strong coupling with trauma, and the ethical and practical difficulties of studying such processes in controlled experiments. However, behavioural and neurobiological research on memory and attention shows that people have executive control processes directed at minimizing perceptual distraction2,3, overcoming interference during short and long-term memory tasks3,4,5,6,7 and stopping strong habitual responses to stimuli8,9,10,11,12,13. Here we show that these mechanisms can be recruited to prevent unwanted declarative memories from entering awareness, and that this cognitive act has enduring consequences for the rejected memories. When people encounter cues that remind them of an unwanted memory and they consistently try to prevent awareness of it, the later recall of the rejected memory becomes more difficult. The forgetting increases with the number of times the memory is avoided, resists incentives for accurate recall and is caused by processes that suppress the memory itself. These results show that executive control processes not uniquely tied to trauma may provide a viable model for repression.
926 citations