Retrieval-induced forgetting: Evidence for a recall-specific mechanism

Abstract

Previous work has shown that recalling information from long-term memory can impair the long-term retention of related representations--a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). We report an experiment in which the question of whether retrieval is necessary to induce this form of impairment was examined. All the subjects studied six members from each of eight taxonomic categories (e.g., fruit orange). In the competitive practice condition, the subjects practiced recalling three of the six members, using category-stem cues (e.g., fruit or__). In the noncompetitive practice condition, the subjects were reexposed to these same members for the same number of repetitions but were asked to recall the category name by using the exemplar and a stem as cues (e.g., fr__orange). Despite significant and comparable facilitation of practiced items in both conditions, only the competitive practice subjects were impaired in their ability to recall the nonpracticed members on a delayed cued-recall test. These findings argue that retrieval-induced forgetting is not caused by increased competition arising from the strengthening of practiced items, but by inhibitory processes specific to the situation of recall.

Retrieval induces forgetting, but only when nontested items compete for retrieval: Implication for interference, inhibition, and context reinstatement.

“…Some researchers have found that category retrieval practice does not produce a retrieval-induced forgetting effect, even though it increased accessibility of the Rp+ items -essentially through restudying. This finding has been provided as evidence for the competition dependence assumption of inhibition theory (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 2000;Grundgeiger, 2013;Hanslmayr, Staudigl, Aslan, & Bäuml, 2010). However, one problem with comparing exemplar retrieval practice with category retrieval practice is that it can conflate strength independence with competition dependence, as the category recall task is much easier and therefore less likely to strengthen the association between the Rp+ items and their category name (Jakab & Raaijmakers, 2009;Verde, 2013).…”

New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects.

“…In the present article, our analyses revealed that neither output interference, category dropout, nor source confusion significantly contributed to the observed effects. We also believe that the weight of available empirical evidence strongly favors an inhibitory account (e.g., the independent probe technique; M. C. Anderson & Spellman, 1995), cross-category forgetting (M. C. Anderson & Green, 2001; M. C. Anderson & Spellman, 1995); and the fact that repeated presentation rather than recall of a subset of items is insufficient to produce a decrement in memory for related material (M. C. Anderson et al, 2000).…”

“…Bjork, 1989;Johnson, 1994), explicit cues to forget are not required. Rather, such forgetting is considered to be the undirected response to dealing with unwanted related information competing for retrieval (M. C. Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994, 2000; M. C. Anderson & McCulloch, 1999;M. C. Anderson & Spellman, 1995).…”

“…Such questionnaires, however, do not constitute an exhaustive retrieval of the information known about the event but rather focus on a subset of items. We also know that it is the act of retrieval that sets up the inhibition of related unpracticed items (M. C. Anderson et al, 2000); that is, the mere presentation of information in the absence of retrieval practice is not sufficient to produce retrievalinduced forgetting. The retrieval of a subset of items about the event, therefore, is likely to produce inhibition of other related pieces of information about the event that have not been the subject of the questionnaire.…”

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

“…If forgetting is produced solely by strengthening practiced items, then doing so through extra exposure without actual retrieval practice should be just as effective in reducing the final recall of unpracticed competitors. Contrary to a noninhibitory account, such conditions fail to produce RIF, despite facilitating the practiced items to the same degree as does retrieval practice (Anderson & Bell, 2001;Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 2000;Bä uml, 1996Bä uml, , 1997Bä uml, , 2002Ciranni & Shimamura, 1999;Shivde & Anderson, 2001). Thus, RIF appears to be specifically induced by retrieval and dissociable from the degree to which practiced items are strengthened.…”