Oh, Honey, I Already Forgot That : Strategic Control of Directed Forgetting in Older and Younger Adults*
TL;DR: Two experiments investigated list-method directed forgetting with older and younger adults and showed that age-related differences in directed forgetting occurred because older adults were less likely than younger adults to initiate a strategy to attempt to forget.
Abstract: This article is about age-related differences in intentional forgetting of unwanted information. Imagine receiving medication and reading the directions on how to take it. Afterwards, the doctor tells you to take a different dosage at a different time from that printed on the label. Updating the directions may necessitate intentional forgetting of the earlier-learned information. The current article took one approach to examining this issue by examining age differences in the effectiveness of intentional forgetting using the popular list-method directed forgetting procedure invented by R. A. Bjork, LaBerge, and LeGrand (1968).
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that the ability to intentionally regulate conscious awareness of unwanted memories through inhibitory control declines with age, highlighting differences in memory control that may be of clinical relevance in the aftermath of unpleasant life events.
Abstract: People often encounter reminders to memories that they would prefer not to think about. When this happens, they often try to exclude the unwanted memory from awareness, a process that relies upon inhibitory control. We propose that the ability to regulate awareness of unwanted memories through inhibition declines with advancing age. In two experiments, we examined younger and older adults’ ability to intentionally suppress retrieval when repeatedly confronted with reminders to an experience they were instructed to not think about. Older adults exhibited significantly less forgetting of the suppressed items compared to younger adults on a later independent probe test of recall, indicating that older adults failed to inhibit the to-be-avoided memories. These findings demonstrate that the ability to intentionally regulate conscious awareness of unwanted memories through inhibitory control declines with age, highlighting differences in memory control that may be of clinical relevance in the aftermath of unpleasant life events.
100 citations
Cites background or result from "Oh, Honey, I Already Forgot That : ..."
...This finding may differ from that reported by Sahakyan et al. (2008) with the directed forgetting procedure, perhaps because the Think/No-Think task confronts participants with strong cues to well learned responses that may create a more challenging control task....
[...]
...…indicates that older adults sometimes are less able to intentionally forget a first list of memory items when given an instruction to forget followed by a second list (Sahakyan et al., 2008; Zacks, Radvanksy, & Hasher, 1996; however, see Zellner & Bäuml, 2006; Sego, Goldin, & Gottlob, 2006)....
[...]
...It remains unclear, however, whether the reduced forgetting for older adults observed in the directed forgetting procedure reflects an inhibition deficit, or a tendency, on the part of older adults, to simply not try to forget because they feel they do not need to (Sahakyan et al., 2008)....
[...]
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
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
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.
Abstract: Performing action phrases (subject-performed tasks, SPTs) leads to better memory than verbal learning instructions (verbal tasks, VTs). In Experiments 1–3, the list-method directed forgetting design produced equivalent directed forgetting impairment for VTs and SPTs; however, directed forgetting enhancement emerged only for VTs, but not SPTs. Serial position analyses revealed that both item types suffered equivalent forgetting across serial positions, but enhancement was evident mostly in the first half of List 2. Experiment 4 used the item-method of directed forgetting and obtained greater directed forgetting for VTs than SPTs. A remember-all baseline group allowed estimating the impairment for to-be-forgotten (TBF) items and enhancement for to-be-remembered (TBR) items. Serial position analyses showed greater impairment for TBF items from the beginning of the list than elsewhere in the list. Directed forgetting enhancement for TBR items occurred throughout the list for VTs, but only in the primacy region for SPTs. Overall, dissociations across the list-method and item-method studies with SPTs suggest that the two methods have different underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, dissociations obtained with SPTs within list-method studies provide support for the dual-factor directed forgetting account and challenge the single-factor accounts.
70 citations
Cites background from "Oh, Honey, I Already Forgot That : ..."
...…investigations of directed forgetting have also taken this approach (e.g., Bäuml et al., 2008; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2007; Sahakyan & Delaney, 2005; Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007; Sahakyan et al., 2008; Zellner & Bäuml, 2006).1 Unless otherwise specified, the results were significant at a = .05 level....
[...]
...Recent investigations of directed forgetting have also taken this approach (e.g., Bäuml et al., 2008; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2007; Sahakyan & Delaney, 2005; Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007; Sahakyan et al., 2008; Zellner & Bäuml, 2006)....
[...]
TL;DR: Age effects were reliably larger when the item method was used, suggesting that these effects are mainly due to encoding differences.
Abstract: In this meta-analysis, we examined the effects of aging on directed forgetting. A cue to forget is more effective in younger (d = 1.17) than in older (d = 0.81) adults. Directed-forgetting effects were larger (a) with the item method rather than with the list method, (b) with longer presentation times, (c) with longer postcue rehearsal times, (d) with single words rather than with verbal action phrases as stimuli, (e) with shorter lists, and (f) when recall rather than recognition was tested. Age effects were reliably larger when the item method was used, suggesting that these effects are mainly due to encoding differences.
60 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a theoretical framework that integrates distinctive-relational processing theory with revised generation-recognition theory was proposed to predict directed forgetting in both implicit and explicit retention tests that provided the same stimulus conditions.
Abstract: 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
364 citations
TL;DR: The authors propose that the costs and benefits of directed forgetting in the list method result from an internal context change that occurs between the presentations of 2 lists in response to a "forget" instruction.
Abstract: The authors propose that the costs and benefits of directed forgetting in the list method result from an internal context change that occurs between the presentations of 2 lists in response to a “forget” instruction. In Experiment 1 of this study, costs and benefits akin to those found in directed forgetting were obtained in the absence of a forget instruction by a direct manipulation of cognitive context change. Experiment 2 of this study replicated those findings using a different cognitive context manipulation and investigated the effects of context reinstatement at the time of recall. Context reinstatement reduced the memorial costs and benefits of context change in the condition where context had been manipulated and in the standard forget condition. The results are consistent with a context change account of directed forgetting. Directed forgetting is a phenomenon first studied by R. A. Bjork, LaBerge, and LeGrand (1968) whereby people appear to be able to intentionally forget information, making it less accessible to later attempts at recall and reducing interference from that information. The paradigm involves two variations: the item method, which seems to reflect differential encoding of items, and the list method, which does not depend on differential encoding of items (Basden, Basden, & Gargano, 1993). The present work concerns the mechanism of directed forgetting with the list method. Participants are presented two lists of items to study but, immediately after List 1, half of the participants are instructed to forget List 1 (the “forget” group), whereas the remaining half are told to continue remembering List 1 (the “remember” group). The final test requires recall of both lists. Typically, the forget group recalls fewer items from the first list than does the remember group—a finding referred to as the costs of directed forgetting
359 citations
"Oh, Honey, I Already Forgot That : ..." refers background or methods or result in this paper
...The interference reduction account attributes the benefits to reduced proactive interference on List 2 in the forget group that occurs either from inhibition of List 1 items (e.g., E. L. Bjork & Bjork, 1996), or from contextual differentiation between the lists (Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002)....
[...]
...We argued that in response to the directed forgetting instruction, participants adopt a forgetting strategy—such as engaging in a diversionary thought—that changes the mental context in which List 2 is encoded (Sahakyan, 2004; Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002)....
[...]
...However, before proceeding to study the second list, half of the participants receiving remember instruction were instructed to visualize their childhood home and describe it to the experimenter for 60 s (following Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002)....
[...]
...Alternatively, Sahakyan and Delaney (2005) have proposed a two-factor account suggesting that directed forgetting arises from a combination of factors including (a) changes in mental context (Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002) and (b) encoding strategy changes (Sahakyan & Delaney, 2005)....
[...]
...For example, we argued that list-method directed forgetting arises from the mismatch of study and test contexts (e.g., Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002); others argued for an inhibitory explanation (e.g., R. A. Bjork, 1989)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, a meta-analysis of the literature was conducted to examine the question of whether the elderly are viewed more negatively than younger persons has not been resolved; results demonstrated that attitudes toward the elderly were more negative than attitudes toward younger people.
Abstract: Attitudes toward the elderly have been examined in a number of empirical studies, yet the question of whether the elderly are viewed more negatively than younger persons has not been resolved. A meta-analysis of the literature was conducted to examine this question; results demonstrated that attitudes toward the elderly are more negative than attitudes toward younger people. However, smaller differences between the evaluations of elderly and younger targets were found when (a) the study used measures of personality traits (compared with measures of competence), (b) there were a larger number of dependent measures included in the effect size, (c) specific information was provided about the target person (compared with when a general target such as old person was used), and (d) a between-subjects design (compared with a within-subjects design) was used. These results support Lutsky's (1981) conclusion that age, in and of itself, seems to be less important in determining attitudes toward the elderly than other types of information. The methodological limitations within the literature and a need to consider multiple components of attitudes toward older individuals are discussed.
336 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a midlist instruction to forget the first half of a list was found to reduce later recall of the items learned incidentally as well as those learned intentionally, which suggests that a cue to forget can lead to a disruption of retrieval processes.
Abstract: Certain reliable findings from research on directed forgetting seem difficult to accommodate in terms of the theoretical processes, such as selective rehearsal or storage differentiation, that have been put forward to account for directed-forgetting phenomena. Some kind of "missing mechanism" appears to be involved. In order to circumvent the methodological constraints that have limited the conclusions investigators could draw from past experiments, a new paradigm is introduced herein that includes a mixture of intentional and incidental learning. With this paradigm, a midlist instruction to forget the first half of a list was found to reduce later recall of the items learned incidentally as well as those learned intentionally. This result suggests that a cue to forget can lead to a disruption of retrieval processes as well as to the alteration of encoding processes postulated in prior theories. The results also provide a link between intentional forgetting and the literature on posthypnotic amnesia, in which disrupted retrieval has been implicated. With each of these procedures, the information that can be remembered is typically recalled out of order and often with limited recollection for when the information had been presented. It therefore was concluded here that retrieval inhibition plays a significant role in nonhypnotic as well as in hypnotic instances of directed forgetting. The usefulness of retrieval inhibition as a mechanism for memory updating was also discussed.
309 citations
TL;DR: Results and others reported suggest that participants can access their knowledge about forgetting but only when theory-based predictions are made, and then only when the notion of forgetting is accentuated either by manipulating retention interval within individuals or by framing recall predictions in terms of forgetting rather than remembering.
Abstract: The authors examined the hypothesis that judgments of learning (JOL), if governed by processing fluency during encoding, should be insensitive to the anticipated retention interval. Indeed, neither item-by-item nor aggregate JOLs exhibited “forgetting” unless participants were asked to estimate recall rates for several different retention intervals, in which case their estimates mimicked closely actual recall rates. These results and others reported suggest that participants can access their knowledge about forgetting but only when theory-based predictions are made, and then only when the notion of forgetting is accentuated either by manipulating retention interval within individuals or by framing recall predictions in terms of forgetting rather than remembering. The authors interpret their findings in terms of the distinction between experience-based and theory-based JOLs.
297 citations