Retrieval Inhibition in Directed Forgetting and Posthypnotic Amnesia

Abstract

In Experiment 1, subjects received either by word or by list directed forgetting or posthypnotic amnesia instructions. Recall and recognition performance of subjects who received directed forgetting instructions was consistent with previous findings reported by Basden, Basden, and Gargano (1993), with subjects who received by word instructions showing both recall and recognition deficits for to-be-forgotten items. By contrast, subjects who were given by list instructions showed recall but no recognition deficits, which suggests that although differential encoding underlies word method directed forgetting, retrieval inhibition underlies list method directed forgetting. Subjects who received posthypnotic amnesia instructions (irrespective of method of delivery used) showed recall deficits but no recognition deficits, which suggests that retrieval inhibition underlies posthypnotic amnesia. In Experiment 2, recognition scores were lower with public (oral) tests than with private (written) tests, and recovery was equivalent for to-be-forgotten and to-be-remembered items. The results are interpreted as inconsistent with the differential tagging mechanisms proposed by Huesmann, Gruder, and Dorst (1987).

The item and list methods of directed forgetting: Test differences and the role of demand characteristics

“…In fact, in the posthypnotic amnesia paradigm, Coe (1978) argued that response withholding did actually occur. Basden, Basden, Coe, Decker, and Crutcher (1994) took this a step further, comparing item method directed forgetting to posthypnotic amnesia instructions. Critically, on the second of two recognition tests, subjects were told that they could now remember all previously forgotten words.…”

Forgetting is effortful: Evidence from reaction time probes in an item-method directed forgetting task

“…Basden, Basden, and Gargano (1993; see also Bjork, 1989) observed that item-method tasks consistently produce better memory for R than for F words (i.e., a directed forgetting effect) for both recognition and recall, whereas list-method tasks produce such differences only for recall. This observation is inconsistent with a common mechanism and has resulted in research that compares item-method tasks with list-method tasks in an effort to discern the mechanism(s) through which R and F instructions operate to influence later memory performance (e.g., Basden, Basden, Coe, Decker, & Crutcher, 1994;Conway f & Fthenaki, 2003;MacLeod, 1999). The culmination of this research suggests that item-method directed forgetting is mediated by selective rehearsal favoring R items (Basden et al, 1993; see also Basden & Basden, 1998), whereas list-method directed forgetting is mediated by the inhibition of F items at the time of retrieval (e.g., Geiselman et n al., 1983) or by a change of mental context between n study and test (e.g., Sahakyan & Delaney, 2005;Sahakyan & Kelley, 2002; for another alternative, see also Sheard & MacLeod, 2005).…”

“…We used a recognition task rather than a recall task largely for pragmatic reasons. First, recognition is a valid measure of item-method directed forgetting, and robust directed forgetting effects are obtained with recognition tests when an item-method paradigm is used (e.g., Basden et al, 1994;Basden et al, 1993; see also Basden & Basden, 1998). Second, our primary goal was to evaluate probe reaction times (RTs) at several intervals relative to R and F instructions.…”

Memory on the beach: an Australian memory (and hypnosis) laboratory

“…DF measures recall of material learned first and intentionally forgotten relative to material learned second and intentionally remembered. This comparison has been made before, but only for lists of words (Basden et al 1994). In one experiment, we asked highs and lows to generate specific autobiographical episodes in response to cue words.…”