Disrupted retrieval in directed forgetting: A link with posthypnotic amnesia

Abstract

Findings from research on directed forgetting seem difficult to accommodate in terms of theoretical processes, such as selective rehearsal or storage differentiation, that have been put forward to account for directed-forgetting phenomena. Some kind of "missing mechanism" appears to be involved. To circumvent the methodological constraints that have limited the conclusions investigators could draw from past experiments, the present author describes a new paradigm that includes a mixture of intentional and incidental learning. Four experiments with 234 undergraduates tested the paradigm. A midlist instruction to forget the 1st half of a list was found to reduce later recall of the items learned incidentally as well as those learned intentionally. This result suggests that a cue to forget can lead to a disruption of retrieval processes as well as to alteration of encoding processes postulated in prior theories. Results also provide a link between intentional forgetting and the literature on posthypnotic amnesia, in which disrupted retrieval has been implicated. With each of these procedures, the information that can be remembered is typically recalled out of order and often with limited recollection for when the information had been presented. It is concluded that retrieval inhibition plays a significant role in nonhypnotic as well as in hypnotic instances of directed forgetting. The usefulness of retrieval inhibition as a mechanism for memory updating is discussed. (38 ref)

Full text

Journal
of
Experimental Psychology:
General
1983,
Vol.
112,
No.
1,58-72
Copyright
1983
by the
American
Psychological
Association, Inc.
0096-3445/83/1201-0058S00.75
Disrupted Retrieval
in
Directed Forgetting:
A
Link
With
Posthypnotic Amnesia
Ralph
E.
Geiselman,
Robert
A.
Bjork,
and
Deborah
L.
Fishman
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles
Certain reliable
findings
from
research
on
directed forgetting seem
difficult
to
accommodate
in
terms
of the
theoretical processes, such
as
selective rehearsal
or
storage
differentiation,
that have been
put
forward
to
account
for
directed-for-
x
getting phenomena. Some kind
of
"missing mechanism" appears
to be
involved.
In
order
to
circumvent
the
methodological constraints that have limited
the
con-
clusions investigators could draw
from
past experiments,
a new
paradigm
is in-
troduced herein that includes
a
mixture
of
intentional
and
incidental learning.
With
this paradigm,
a
midlist instruction
to
forget
the first
half
of a
list
was
found
to
reduce
later
recall
of the
items
learned
incidentally
as
well
as
those
learned
intentionally. This result suggests that
a cue to
forget
can
lead
to a
disruption
of
retrieval processes
as
well
as to the
alteration
of
encoding processes postulated
in
prior theories.
The
results also provide
a
link between intentional forgetting
and the
literature
on
posthypnotic amnesia,
in
which
disrupted
retrieval
has
been
implicated. With each
of
these procedures,
the
information that
can be
remem-
bered
is
typically recalled
out of
order
and
often
with limited recollection
for
when
the
information
had
been presented.
It
therefore
was
concluded here that
retrieval inhibition plays
a
significant role
in
nonhypnotic
as
well
as in
hypnotic
instances
of
directed forgetting.
The
usefulness
of
retrieval inhibition
as a
mech-
anism
for
memory updating
was
also discussed.
Although
most instances
of
forgetting
are
unintentional
or
incidental, there
are
occa-
sions
when
we try to
forget,
either because
the
memory
is
unappealing
or
because
the
memory
constitutes
a
source
of
interference
in
conducting routine mental operations
such
as
memory updating. Consequently,
se-
lective
forgetting
has
been assigned
an
inte-
gral
role
in the
processing
of
to-be-remem-
bered
(R)
information
by
various scholars
and
researchers.
In
1882,
for
example,
Ribot
wrote
in his
book that
without
the
total obliteration
of an
immense number
of
states
of
consciousness,
and the
momentary repression
of
more, recollection would
be
impossible.
Forgetfulness,
except
in
certain cases,
is not a
disease
of
memory,
but
a
condition
of its
health
and
life.
(p. 61)
In
1890,
James wrote that
"if we
remem-
bered
everything,
we
should
on
most occa-
Portions
of
this research were presented
by the
senior
author
as
part
of a
symposium
on
directed forgetting
at
the
meeting
of the
American Psychological Association,
Toronto^
August
1978.
Requests
for
reprints should
be
sent
to
Ralph
E.
Gei-
selman, Department
of
Psychology, University
of
Cali-
fornia,
Los
Angeles, California 90024.
sions
be as ill
off
as if we
remembered noth-
ing"
(p.
680).
More recently,
Bjork
(1972)
has
stated,
"That
we
need
to
update
our
memories
is
clear:
We
would degenerate
to
a
proactive-interference-induced state
of to-
tal
confusion
otherwise"
(p.
218).
The
apparent importance
of
selective for-
getting
in
daily experience
has led to a
broad-
based
search
for the
mental mechanisms
un-
derlying
intentional
forgetting.
Some
mem-
ory
theorists have contended that intentional
forgetting
can be
carried
out
simply through
selective
inattention.
The
Roth Memory
Course
(Roth,
1918/1961),
for
example,
teaches that
by
denying
any
attention
to
your temporary mental
[associations]
after
they
have
served their purpose, they
will
pass
out of
your mind.
In
this way, your [coding
schemes]
are
left free
for filing
other
facts,
(p.
287)
There
is
some empirical evidence,
however,
that subjects
can
influence
the
inaccessibility
of
memories
to a
greater extent with
a
delib-
erate motivational
set to
forget
than with
a
passive
nonrehearsal
or
inattention strategy
(Weiner
&
Reed,
1969).
This article attempts
to (a)
evaluate
the
explanatory status
of
cer-
tain mechanisms that
have
been proposed
to
58