Intentions to forget and the importance of interference: further tests of the strategic retrieval account of recent list-method directed forgetting.

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Liz T Gilbert, Peter F Delaney
{"title":"Intentions to forget and the importance of interference: further tests of the strategic retrieval account of recent list-method directed forgetting.","authors":"Liz T Gilbert, Peter F Delaney","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2025.2512756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several list-method directed forgetting studies found that people can forget the most recent of two lists when instructed to, a phenomenon termed <i>recent directed forgetting</i>. The present paper tested predictions from [Gilbert, L. T., Delaney, P. F., & Racsmány, M. (2023). People sometimes remember to forget: Strategic retrieval from the list before last enables directed forgetting of the most recent information. <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition</i>, <i>49</i>(6), 900-925. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001178] strategic retrieval account of recent directed forgetting, which proposes that people try to forget the most recent list by retrieving earlier-studied items, creating interference and new learning necessary to forget. Experiments 1 and 2 confirmed the prediction that without intentions to forget, instructions to retrieve List 1 promote forgetting of List 2. Experiments 3 and 4 tested anticipated boundary conditions of strategic retrieval. First, recognition testing eliminated the forgetting effect (Experiment 3). Second, categorised lists were expected to allow forgetting only when both lists were drawn from the same semantic category, as opposed to unrelated categories (Experiment 4). Contrary to our prediction, categorised lists showed significant forgetting under both conditions, despite reducing interference. The results suggest a dissociation between changing context via retrieval of earlier context and the process of \"setting\" context by studying new items after a context change.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2025.2512756","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several list-method directed forgetting studies found that people can forget the most recent of two lists when instructed to, a phenomenon termed recent directed forgetting. The present paper tested predictions from [Gilbert, L. T., Delaney, P. F., & Racsmány, M. (2023). People sometimes remember to forget: Strategic retrieval from the list before last enables directed forgetting of the most recent information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 49(6), 900-925. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001178] strategic retrieval account of recent directed forgetting, which proposes that people try to forget the most recent list by retrieving earlier-studied items, creating interference and new learning necessary to forget. Experiments 1 and 2 confirmed the prediction that without intentions to forget, instructions to retrieve List 1 promote forgetting of List 2. Experiments 3 and 4 tested anticipated boundary conditions of strategic retrieval. First, recognition testing eliminated the forgetting effect (Experiment 3). Second, categorised lists were expected to allow forgetting only when both lists were drawn from the same semantic category, as opposed to unrelated categories (Experiment 4). Contrary to our prediction, categorised lists showed significant forgetting under both conditions, despite reducing interference. The results suggest a dissociation between changing context via retrieval of earlier context and the process of "setting" context by studying new items after a context change.

遗忘意图与干扰的重要性:近期列表法定向遗忘策略检索解释的进一步检验。
几项列表法定向遗忘研究发现,人们可以在指令下忘记两张列表中最近的一张,这种现象被称为近期定向遗忘。本文测试了Gilbert, L. T., Delaney, P. F., & Racsmány, M.(2023)的预测。人们有时会记住忘记:从最后一个列表中战略性地检索可以直接忘记最近的信息。实验心理学杂志:学习、记忆与认知,49(6),900-925。https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001178]最近定向遗忘的策略检索帐户,它提出人们试图通过检索以前学习过的项目来忘记最近的列表,产生干扰和新的学习来忘记。实验1和实验2证实了在没有遗忘意图的情况下,检索列表1的指令会促进列表2的遗忘。实验3和4测试了策略检索的预期边界条件。首先,识别测试消除了遗忘效应(实验3)。第二,只有当两个列表来自相同的语义类别时,分类列表才会允许遗忘,而不是不相关的类别(实验4)。与我们的预测相反,分类列表在两种情况下都显示出明显的遗忘,尽管减少了干扰。研究结果表明,在情境改变后,通过对先前情境的检索来改变情境,与在情境改变后通过学习新项目来“设置”情境之间存在分离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信