Forgetting in context: The effects of age, emotion, and social factors on retrieval-induced forgetting

Barber, Sarah J.; Mather, Mara

doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0202-8

Cited by 36 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 107 publications

(122 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may explain why collaborative inhibition did not vary between the emotional and neutral stimuli in the current study. Other research has reported that retrieval inhibition is not always affected by stimuli valence or arousal (e.g., Barber & Mather, 2012; Barnier, Hung, & Conway, 2004; Kuhbandner, Bäuml, & Stiedl, 2009; McNally, Clancy, Barrett, & Parker, 2004; Wessel & Merckelbach, 2006; but see Dehli & Brennen, 2009; Kuhbandner, Bauml, & Stiedl, 2009; Moulds & Kandris, 2006 for evidence of reduced retrieval inhibition for emotional stimuli). Furthermore, research on part-set cuing has also suggested that retrieval disruption is less likely, and retrieval inhibition is more likely, when the study stimuli have a high degree of inter-item associations (Bäuml & Aslan, 2006), as was likely the case for our emotional stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Younger and older adults’ collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a group of people working together recalls more items than any one individual, they recall fewer unique items than the same number of people working apart whose responses are combined. This is known as collaborative inhibition and it is a robust effect that occurs for both younger and older adults. However, almost all previous studies documenting collaborative inhibition have used stimuli that were neutral in emotional valence, low in arousal, and studied by all group members. In the current experiments, we tested the impact of picture-stimuli valence, stimuli arousal, and information distribution in modulating the magnitude of collaborative inhibition. We included both younger and older adults because there are age differences in how people remember emotional pictures that could modulate any effects of emotion on collaborative inhibition. Results revealed that when information was shared (i.e., studied by all group members) there were robust collaborative inhibition effects for both neutral and emotional stimuli for both younger and older adults. However, when information was unshared (i.e., studied by only a single group member) these effects were attenuated. Together these results provide mixed support for the retrieval strategy disruption account of collaborative inhibition. Supporting the retrieval strategy disruption account, unshared study information was less susceptible to collaborative inhibition than shared study information. Contradicting the retrieval strategy disruption account, emotional valence and arousal did not modulate the magnitude of collaborative inhibition despite the fact that participants clustered the emotional, but not neutral, information together in memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Younger and older adults’ collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…“Working memory involves the temporary storage and manipulation of information that is assumed to be necessary for a wide range of complex cognitive activities.” Working memory is an integral aspect of thinking, and its sub‐process, reasoning . These processes allow one to figure out the meaning of what has just been said in conversation; to comprehend what one has just read; and to problem solve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…91 This is especially evident during the retrieval process. [92][93][94][95] "It is reasonable to assume that without encoding and storage of information there can be no retrieval. But the converse is truer-without retrieval there is no evidence that either encoding or storage ever occurred.…”

Section: Memory Attention and Executive Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…97 Working memory is an integral aspect of thinking, and its sub-process, reasoning. [92][93][94][95] These processes allow one to figure out the meaning of what has just been said in conversation; to comprehend what one has just read; and to problem solve. The ability to do these tasks quickly and accurately depend on selective attention and vigilance, speed of processing ability, as well as the reserve of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.…”

Section: Memory Attention and Executive Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comorbidities confounding the outcomes of surgery for third window syndrome: Outlier analysis

Wackym

Mackay-Promitas

Demirel

et al. 2017

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivePatients with third window syndrome and superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SSCD) symptoms whose surgical outcomes placed them as outliers were systematically studied to determine comorbidities that were responsible for their poor outcomes due to these confounding factors.Study DesignObservational analytic case‐control study in a tertiary referral center.MethodsTwelve adult patients with clinical SSCD syndrome underwent surgical management and had outcomes that did not resolve all of their subjective symptoms. In addition to one of the neurotologists, 2 neurologists (one specializing in migraine and the other a neuro‐ophthalmologist), and a psychologist clinician‐investigator completed comprehensive evaluations. Neuropsychology test batteries included: the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic; Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD‐7); Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale; the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, including the 3 domains of verbal memory, visual memory, and attention/concentration; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; and the Delis‐Kaplan Executive Function System. The control cohort was comprised of 17 participants who previously underwent surgery for third window syndrome that resulted in the expected outcomes of resolution of their third window syndrome symptoms and cognitive dysfunction.ResultsThere was a high rate of psychological comorbidity (n = 6) in the outlier cohort; multiple traumatic brain injuries were also a confounding element (n = 10). One patient had elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure requiring ventriculoperitoneal shunting to control the recurrence of dehiscence and one patient with a drug‐induced Parkinson‐like syndrome and idiopathic progressive neurological degenerative process.ConclusionsComponents of the Millon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic, PHQ‐9 and GAD‐7 results suggest that these instruments would be useful as screening tools preoperatively to identify psychological comorbidities that could confound outcomes. The identification of these comorbid psychological as well as other neurological degenerative disease processes led to alternate clinical management pathways for these patients.Level of Evidence2b.

show abstract

“…This retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) occurs when memories that remain unmentioned, but are related to what is recalled in a conversation, are remembered less well in a subsequent memory test than are unrelated, unrecalled memories. The ability of speakers to induce forgetting in themselves is referred to as within-individual retrieval-induced forgetting (WI-RIF); the ability of speakers to induce forgetting in listeners, socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting (SS-RIF; Barber & Mather, 2012;Brown, Kramer, Romano, & Hirst, 2012;A. Coman, Manier, & Hirst, 2009;Cuc, Koppel, & Hirst, 2007;Stone, Barnier, Sutton, & Hirst, 2010;Stone, Barnier, Sutton, & Hirst, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

The Effect of Listening to Others Remember on Subsequent Memory: The Roles of Expertise and Trust in Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting and Social Contagion

Koppel¹,

Wohl²,

Meksin³

et al. 2014

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

speakers reshape listeners' memories through at least two discrete means:(1) social contagion and (2) socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting (ss-RIF). Three experiments explored how social relationships between speaker and listener moderate these conversational effects, focusing specifically on two speaker characteristics, expertise and trustworthiness. We examined their effect on ss-RIF and contrasted, within-subjects, their effects on both ss-RIF and the previously studied social contagion. Experiments 1 and 2 explored the effects of perceived expertise; Experiment 3 explored trust. We found (1) that speakers who were perceived as experts induced greater levels of social contagion and lower levels of ss-RIF than non-expert speakers, and (2) that, likewise, trust in the speaker had similar mnemonic consequences, in that neutral speakers induced more social contagion and less ss-RIF than untrustworthy speakers. These findings suggest that how speakers shape listeners' memories depends on the social dynamic that exists between speaker and listener.

show abstract

Forgetting in context: The effects of age, emotion, and social factors on retrieval-induced forgetting

Cited by 36 publications

References 107 publications

Younger and older adults’ collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures

Younger and older adults’ collaborative recall of shared and unshared emotional pictures

Comorbidities confounding the outcomes of surgery for third window syndrome: Outlier analysis

The Effect of Listening to Others Remember on Subsequent Memory: The Roles of Expertise and Trust in Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting and Social Contagion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About