Task compliance predicts suppression-induced forgetting in a large sample

Suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) refers to a memory impairment resulting from repeated attempts to stop the retrieval of unwanted memory associates. SIF has become established in the literature through a growing number of reports built upon the Think/No-Think (TNT) paradigm. Not all individuals and not all reported experiments yield reliable forgetting, however. Given the reliance on task instructions to motivate participants to suppress target memories, such inconsistencies in SIF may reasonably owe to differences in compliance or expectations as to whether they will again need to retrieve those items (on, say, a final test). We tested these possibilities on a large (N = 497) sample of TNT participants. In addition to successfully replicating SIF, we found that the magnitude of the effect was significantly and negatively correlated with participants’ reported compliance during the No-Think trials. This pattern held true on both same- and independent-probe measures of forgetting, as well as when the analysis was conditionalized on initial learning. In contrast, test expectancy was not associated with SIF. Supporting previous intuition and more limited post-hoc examinations, this study provides robust evidence that a lack of compliance with No-Think instructions significantly compromises SIF. As such, it suggests that diminished effects in some studies may owe, at least in part, to non-compliance—a factor that should be carefully tracked and/or controlled. Motivated forgetting is possible, provided that one is sufficiently motivated and capable of following the task instructions.

Driven to forget: Task compliance predicts suppression-induced forgetting in a large sample

Suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) refers to a memory impairment resulting from repeated attempts to stop the retrieval of unwanted memory associates. SIF has become established in the literature through a growing number of reports built upon the Think/No-Think (TNT) paradigm. Not all individuals and not all reported experiments yield reliable forgetting, however. Given the reliance on task instructions to motivate participants to suppress target memories, such inconsistencies in SIF may reasonably owe to differences in compliance or expectations as to whether they will again need to retrieve those items (on, say, a final test). We tested these possibilities on a large (N= 497) sample of TNT participants. In addition to successfully replicating SIF, we found that the magnitude of the effect was predicted significantly and negatively by participants’ reported compliance during the No-Think trials. This pattern held true on both same- and independent-probe measures of forgetting, as well as when the analysis was conditionalized on initial learning. In contrast, test expectancy did not reliably predict SIF. Supporting previous intuition and more limited post-hoc examinations, this study provides robust evidence that a lack of compliance with No-Think instructions significantly compromises SIF. As such, it suggests that diminished effects in some studies may owe, at least in part, to non-compliance—a factor that should be carefully tracked and/or controlled. Motivated forgetting is possible, provided that one is sufficiently motivated and capable of following the task instructions.

Is This Going to Be on The Test? Testing Expectancy Moderates the Sans Forgetica Effect

Recent work examining the mnemonic effects of Sans Forgetica have yielded discrepant findings; some research finds support for the idea that the novel, disfluent typeface improves memory while other research does not. To explore this discrepancy, the current study examined a boundary condition that determines when Sans Forgetica is and is not beneficial to learning. Specifically, we examined whether knowledge about an upcoming test (high test expectancy) versus not (low test expectancy) helps clarify when mnemonic benefits arise and when they do not. In Experiment 1 (preregistered, N = 231), we found that Sans Forgetica is a desirable difficulty, but only under the right circumstances. That is, Sans Forgetica was in fact perceptually disfluent as evinced by lower JOLs and increased study times. However, we observed improved memory on an old/new recognition test only when there was no expectation of a final test. When participants expected a test, the effect disappeared. In Experiment 2 (N = 116), we conceptually replicated the results of Experiment 1 using a cued recall test. Caution should be taken in interpreting these results, however. Not only were the effect sizes small, but low testing expectancy may not be realistically achievable in actual educational contexts. Echoing our prior arguments, students wanting to remember more and forget less should stick to other, more empirically supported desirable difficulties shown to enhance memory.

To What Extent Do Situation-Model-Approach Interventions Improve Relative Metacomprehension Accuracy? Meta-Analytic Insights

This meta-analysis investigated the extent to which relative metacomprehension accuracy can be increased by interventions that aim to support learners’ use of situation-model cues as a basis for judging their text comprehension. These interventions were delayed-summary writing, delayed-keywords listing, delayed-diagram completion, self-explaining, concept mapping, rereading, and setting a comprehension-test expectancy. First, the general effectiveness of situation-model-approach interventions was examined. The results revealed that, across 28 effect sizes (comprising a total of 2,236 participants), situation-model-approach interventions exerted a medium positive effect (g = 0.46) on relative metacomprehension accuracy. Second, the interventions were examined individually. The results showed that, with the exception of self-explaining, each intervention had a significant positive effect on relative metacomprehension accuracy. Yet, there was a tendency for setting a comprehension-test expectancy to be particularly effective. A further meta-analysis on comprehension in the selected studies revealed that, overall, the situation-model-approach interventions were also beneficial for directly improving comprehension, albeit the effect was small. Taken together, the findings demonstrate the utility of situation-model-approach interventions for supporting self-regulated learning from texts.

Does sleep selectively strengthen certain memories over others? A critical review of the literature

Sleep has been found to have a beneficial effect on memory consolidation. It has furthermore frequently been suggested that sleep does not strengthen all memories equally. The aim of this literature review was to examine the studies that have measured whether sleep selectively strengthens certain kinds of declarative memories more than others, depending on such factors as emotion, reward, test-expectancy or different instructions during encoding. The review of this literature revealed that although some support exists that sleep is more beneficial for certain kinds of memories, the majority of studies does not support such an effect. A second aim of this review was to examine which factors during sleep that have been found to selectively benefit certain memories over others, with a special focus on the often-suggested claim that rapid eye movement sleep primarily consolidates emotional memories. The review of this literature revealed that no sleep variable has been reliably found to be specifically associated with the consolidation of certain kinds of memories over others.