Directed Forgetting of Related Words: Evidence for the Inefficient Inhibition Hypothesis

Lehman, Elyse Brauch; Srokowski, Sally A.; Hall, Laura C.; Renkey, Mary E.; Cruz, Carmen A.

doi:10.1080/00221300309601165

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, it is not a problem if in trying to activate the word night the word day is also activated if the stimulus is an abstract design that carries no association with the word day . These findings are consistent with those from studies using the directed-forgetting paradigm which demonstrate that children are more likely to recall words they were instructed to forget if those words are semantically related to words they were instructed to remember than if they are unrelated (Harnishfeger & Pope, 1996; Lehman, Srokowski, Hall, Renkey, & Cruz, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Inhibitory abilities undergo an extremely slow, protracted developmental progression, not reaching full maturity until early adulthood (Diamond, 2002). Thus, for example, in the directed forgetting paradigm (in which participants are directed to forget some words they are shown and to remember others), even 11year-olds show more intrusions of the to-be-forgotten words than do adults (e.g., Harnishfeger & Pope, 1996;Lehman et al, 2000). Similarly, on the "anti-saccade" task (in which participants are instructed to look away in the opposite direction from a visual stimulus, suppressing the tendency to reflexively look at [saccade to] the stimulus), performance improves continuously from early childhood through 20 -25 years of age (Fischer, Biscaldi, & Gezeck, 1997;Luna et al, 2001;Munoz, Broughton, Goldring, & Armstrong, 1998).…”

Section: What Are the Demands Of The Day-night Task That Cause Such D...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response.

Diamond¹,

Kirkham²,

Amso³

2002

Developmental Psychology

309

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The day-night task requires saying "night" to a picture of the sun and "day" to a picture of the moon. In this investigation of why young children fail at this task, systematic variations of the task were administered to 96 children, half 4 years old and half 4 1/2 years old. Training children on the strategy of chunking the 2 rules into I ("say the opposite"), thus reducing memory load, did not help their performance. What helped was reducing the inhibitory demand by instructing them to say "dog" and "pig" (not "night" and "day") even though memory of 2 rules and inhibiting saying what the pictures represented were still required. Here the response to be activated and the response to be inhibited were unrelated. When the correct response was semantically related to, and the direct opposite of, the to-be-inhibited response, children performed poorly. Inserting a delay between stimulus and response helped even though that delay was filled with distraction. Young children apparently need several seconds to compute the answer on this task. Often they do not take the needed time; when forced to do so, they do well.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: What Are the Demands Of The Day-night Task That Cause Such D...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response.

Diamond¹,

Kirkham²,

Amso³

2002

Developmental Psychology

309

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Experiment 2, the remember-cued items were all of one race and the forget-cued items were all of another race. In previous research (Golding, Long, & MacLeod, 1994;Lehman, Srokowski, Hall, Renkey, & Cruz, 2003;Zacks, Radvansky, & Hasher, 1996), directed-forgetting effects were attenuated by the use of forgetcued items that were semantically related to remember-cued items. In Experiment 2, however, the remember-cued items were related to each other rather than to the forget-cued items.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Intentionally forgetting other-race faces: Costs and benefits?

Fitzgerald

Price

Oriet

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitnesses to events with multiple actors might be aware that during a subsequent investigation some actors will need to be remembered and others can be forgotten. Research on the directed-forgetting procedure suggests that when some information is cued to be forgotten, retention of other information is enhanced. In three experiments, directed-forgetting conditions were compared with control conditions to assess potential costs and benefits of forgetting other-race faces. In Experiment 1, undergraduate students (N = 148; mostly Caucasian) viewed all Black faces or all Asian faces followed by overt remember or forget cues. Participants in the directed-forgetting conditions of Experiments 2 and 3 received more covert cues instructing them to remember the faces of one race and to forget the faces of another race. In Experiment 2, undergraduate students (N = 116; all Caucasian) viewed Black and Asian faces within the context of a criminal storyline. In Experiment 3, undergraduate students (N = 94; all Caucasian) again viewed Black and Asian faces; however, the remember and forget cues were embedded in a noncriminal narrative. Although faces generally were forgotten on cue, forgetting some faces did not enhance memory for other faces. Furthermore, recognition of remember-cued faces was impaired by exposure to forget-cued faces. These findings indicate that faces can be forgotten on cue, but that doing so confers no benefit for remembering other faces. Eyewitnesses are advised that exposure to irrelevant faces reduces the likelihood that relevant faces will be remembered, even when effort is allocated to forgetting the irrelevant faces.

show abstract

“…Although accounts of retrieval-induced forgetting in adults emphasize the role of retrieval-based inhibition in memory impairment , changes to the organization of information in storage-reducing its later accessibilitymay also arise as a consequence of inhibition (Anderson, 2003;Howe, 2002;Lehman, Srokowski, Hall, Renkey, & Cruz, 2003). In the current experiment there were, necessarily, longer interpolated delays between review sessions for children engaging in spaced review, and the delay between the event and the first review session was inevitably shorter for children engaging in spaced review than for those engaging in massed review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%