Is Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Involved in Directed Forgetting?

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Basden ◽  
Barbara H. Basden ◽  
Emily Morales
Author(s):  
Paul S. Scotti ◽  
Ashleigh M. Maxcey

AbstractDirected forgetting is a laboratory task in which subjects are told to remember some information and forget other information. In directed forgetting tasks, participants are able to exert intentional control over which information they retain in memory and which information they forget. Forgetting in this task appears to be mediated by intentional control of memory states in which executive control mechanisms suppress unwanted information. Recognition-induced forgetting is another laboratory task in which subjects forget information. Recognizing a target memory induces the forgetting of related items stored in memory. Rather than occurring due to volitional control, recognition-induced forgetting is an incidental by-product of activating items in memory. Here we asked whether intentional directed forgetting or unintentional recognition-induced forgetting is a more robust forgetting effect. While there was a correlation between forgetting effects when the same subjects did both tasks, the magnitude of recognition-induced forgetting was larger than the magnitude of directed forgetting. These results point to practical differences in forgetting outcomes between two commonly used laboratory-forgetting paradigms.


2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind Potts ◽  
Robin Law ◽  
John F. Golding ◽  
David Groome

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) refers to the finding that the retrieval of an item from memory impairs the retrieval of related items. The extent to which this impairment is found in laboratory tests varies between individuals, and recent studies have reported an association between individual differences in the strength of the RIF effect and other cognitive and clinical factors. The present study investigated the reliability of these individual differences in the RIF effect. A RIF task was administered to the same individuals on two occasions (sessions T1 and T2), one week apart. For Experiments 1 and 2 the final retrieval test at each session made use of a category-cue procedure, whereas Experiment 3 employed category-plus-letter cues, and Experiment 4 used a recognition test. In Experiment 2 the same test items that were studied, practiced, and tested at T1 were also studied, practiced, and tested at T2, but for the remaining three experiments two different item sets were used at T1 and T2. A significant RIF effect was found in all four experiments. A significant correlation was found between RIF scores at T1 and T2 in Experiment 2, but for the other three experiments the correlations between RIF scores at T1 and T2 failed to reach significance. This study therefore failed to find clear evidence for reliable individual differences in RIF performance, except where the same test materials were used for both test sessions. These findings have important implications for studies involving individual differences in RIF performance.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Cheng ◽  
W. Lin ◽  
I. Liu ◽  
D. Hung ◽  
O. J. Tzeng
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Almudena Ortega ◽  
Carlos J. Gomez-Ariza ◽  
Teresa Bajo
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Clement ◽  
Danielle Atkins ◽  
Emily Mann ◽  
Krista Bond ◽  
Jodi Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document