A large body of literature on "within-individual retrieval-induced forgetting" (WI-RIF; Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994) shows that repeatedly retrieving some items, while not retrieving other related items, facilitates later recall of the practised items, but inhibits later recall of the non-practised related items. This robust effect has recently been extended to "socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting" (SS-RIF; Cuc, Koppel, & Hirst, 2007). People who merely listen to a speaker retrieving some, but not other, items-even people participating as speakers or listeners in conversations-show the same facilitation and inhibition. We replicated and extended the SS-RIF effect with a structured story (Experiment 1) and in a free-flowing conversation about the story (Experiment 2). Specifically, we explored (1) the degree to which participants subsequently form a coherent "collective memory" of the story and (2) whether schema consistency of the target information influences both WI-RIF and SS-RIF. In both experiments, speakers and listeners showed RIF (that is, WI-RIF and SS-RIF, respectively), irrespective of the schema consistency of the story material. On final recall, speakers and listeners described similar renderings of the story. We discuss these findings in terms of the role of "silences" in the formation of collective memories.

People often talk to others about their personal past. These discussions are inherently selective. Selective retrieval of memories in the course of a conversation may induce forgetting of unmentioned but related memories for both speakers and listeners (Cuc, Koppel, & Hirst, 2007). Cuc et al. (2007) defined the forgetting on the part of the speaker as within-individual retrieval-induced forgetting (WI-RIF) and the forgetting on the part of the listener as socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting (SS-RIF). However, if the forgetting associated with WI-RIF and SS-RIF is to be taken seriously as a mechanism that shapes both individual and shared memories, this mechanism must be demonstrated with meaningful material and in ecologically valid groups. In our first 2 experiments we extended SS-RIF from unemotional, experimenter-contrived material to the emotional and unemotional autobiographical memories of strangers (Experiment 1) and intimate couples (Experiment 2) when merely overhearing the speaker selectively practice memories. We then extended these results to the context of a free-flowing conversation (Experiments 3 and 4). In all 4 experiments we found WI-RIF and SS-RIF regardless of the emotional valence or individual ownership of the memories. We discuss our findings in terms of the role of conversational silence in shaping both our personal and shared pasts.

We examined whether and how memories and knowledge of World War II (WWII) transmit across generations. We recruited five French-speaking Belgian families and interviewed one member from each generation. As the oldest generation had to be alive during WWII, their interviews constituted “memories” while the interviews of the middle and youngest generation constituted “knowledge”, as they were not alive during WWII. Each individual was asked about four WWII events specific to Belgium (two of which were likely to be controversial, i.e., collaboration and the Royal Question), and the source from which they learned about these four events: was it communicatively (e.g., through familial discussions) or culturally (e.g., social artifacts: books, school, monuments, etc.) transmitted? Our results suggest that transmission of memories and knowledge across generations was limited. The oldest generation, who were children during the war, and the middle generation knew about the WWII events discussed in the interviews, particularly the oldest generation. The youngest generation, however, did not. Furthermore, for the most part, all generations, in discussing memories of the WWII events, told nationally relevant memories. If the oldest generation discussed personally relevant memories, these memories sometimes transmitted to the middle generation and rarely to the youngest. We discuss these results in terms of Assmann and Czaplicka’s (1995; Assmann, 2011) distinction between communicative and cultural memory.