2009
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0813370106
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm

Abstract: Memory suppression is investigated with the no-think paradigm, which produces forgetting following repeated practice of not thinking about a memory [Anderson MC, Green C (2001) Nature 410:366 -369]. Because the forgotten item is not retrieved even when tested with an independent, semantically related cue, it has been assumed that this forgetting is due to an inhibition process. However, this conclusion is based on a single stage to recall, whereas global memory models, which produce forgetting through a proces… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
113
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
7
113
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although this process may contribute to the effect when measured with the original cue (Ordeal), it seems unlikely to contribute on tests using a novel cue like Insect R___. The fact that impairment generalizes to such cues suggests that inhibition contributes to the negative control effect (see, however, Tomlinson et al, 2009 , for alternative view).…”
Section: Cue-independencementioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although this process may contribute to the effect when measured with the original cue (Ordeal), it seems unlikely to contribute on tests using a novel cue like Insect R___. The fact that impairment generalizes to such cues suggests that inhibition contributes to the negative control effect (see, however, Tomlinson et al, 2009 , for alternative view).…”
Section: Cue-independencementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Recently, in unpublished work, we have observed a reliable 9% negative control effect on item recognition with verbal items that is qualitatively similar in magnitude to the cued recall effect. However, Tomlinson et al ( 2009 ) reported a small but non-reliable negative control effect on item recognition (2%), even when negative control effects were observed in cued recall. It must be noted, however, that their recognition test was administered after their recall test, and overall recognition performance was close to ceiling, either of which potentially complicates interpretation.…”
Section: Effects Of Test Typementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, we also acknowledge that there are other, noninhibitory accounts of retrieval-induced forgetting. For example, interference theories of forgetting (e.g., Tomlinson, Huber, Rieth, & Davelaar, 2009) argue that it is the learning of new information that causes forgetting. That is, the original memory is difficult to access and recall if there are other memories competing with it at retrieval.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas the original account attributed such forgetting to inhibition of the suppressed memory (1), Tomlinson et al (2) suggest that forgetting may arise as a result of interference at test. Tomlinson et al argue that, although in opposition to task instructions, participants occasionally may sample the target during no-think training and then learn to associate this memory with the no-think response (i.e., "sitting quietly").…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%