The influence of directional associations on directed forgetting and interference.

Abstract

Two experiments examined how cross-list directional associations influenced list-method directed forgetting and the degree of interference observed on each list. Each List 1 item had a (a) bidirectionally related item on List 2 (chip <----> potato), (b) forward association with an item on List 2 (chip --> wood), (c) backward association from an item on List 2 (chip <-- chisel), or (d) no relationship with List 2 items. The results revealed that associative relationships that eliminated retroactive interference in the baseline condition also eliminated the directed forgetting costs. In contrast, associative relationships did not affect List 2 recall in the forget group, which remained unchanged across experimental conditions. However, certain conditions reduced proactive interference in the remember group, thereby eliminating the benefits of directed forgetting. The directed forgetting costs and benefits were observed independently of each other. The authors propose that these effects emerged from a combination of item and context strengthening induced by different associative directions.

Retrieval practice can eliminate list method directed forgetting

“…This hypothesis was suggested on the basis of findings showing that (i) amount of LMDF depends on amount of interference between lists (e.g., Bäuml & Kliegl, 2013;Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007), and (ii) retrieval practice can reduce or even eliminate interlist interference (e.g., Halamish & Bjork, 2011;Szpunar et al, 2008). The results of the present study support the suggested hypothesis.…”

“…In line with this view, it has been shown that list 1 forgetting can be eliminated if there is a strong associative relationship between list 1 and list 2 items (Conway et al, 2000;Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007), or when the two lists are presented in different study formats (Hupbach & Sahakyan, 2014). The present results add to this list of boundary conditions on LMDF by showing that retrieval practice after initial study can also eliminate list 1 forgetting.…”

“…The results of previous studies support such view and reported no forgetting of list 1 items when interference between lists was experimentally reduced, i.e., when there were strong associative relationships between the items of the two lists (Conway, Harries, Noyes, Racsmany, & Frankish, 2000;Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007), when list 1 items were taken from a different semantic category than the items of list 2 (Lehman & Malmberg, 2011), and when the two lists were presented in different study formats (Hupbach & Sahakyan, 2014). Vice versa, the effect of the forget cue was found to be enhanced if interference was augmented by increasing the number of studied precue lists (Bäuml & Kliegl, 2013).…”

“…The present results add to this list of boundary conditions on LMDF by showing that retrieval practice after initial study can also eliminate list 1 forgetting. While in some of these boundary conditions, like when the items of the two lists are associatively related (Conway et al, 2000;Sahakyan & Goodmon, 2007), integration processes may be at the heart of the reduced interference (Conway et al, 2000), in others, like when lists are presented in different study formats (Hupbach & Sahakyan, 2014), and in the present study, enhanced list segregation processes may mediate the effect.…”

Semantic integration as a boundary condition on inhibitory processes in episodic retrieval.

“…Preexisting semantic relationships also moderate directed forgetting. Sahakyan and Goodmon (2007) found less directed forgetting when there were strong associations between the to-be-forgotten list and the to-be-remembered list. Reduced directed forgetting occurred even though participants were not informed about the relationships between the lists.…”