Motivated forgetting Flashcards
Distinction sometimes drawn between repression and suppression
Repression = unconscious process, suppression = conscious and intentional
Intentional forgetting vs motivated forgetting
Intentional forgetting: arising from processes initiated by a conscious goal to forget.
Motivated forgetting: Broader term that also includes cases hwen forgetting is nonaccidental, but not consciously intended. Includes psychogenic amnesia but also includes ordinary, non-pathological/non-clinical, day-to-day examples in which people forget unpleasant things
Vid vilket “steg” av minnesprocessen kan man glömma saker med flit och hur?
*forgetting can theoretically be accomplished by intervening at any stage of memory
- limit encoding (looking away from stimulus or focusing on only its pleasant aspects. Or ceasing elaborative thoughts)
- avoid reminders to prevent retrieval
- stop retrieval
(Engaging in mechanisms involved in “normal forgetting” in service of emotional goals)
Factors predicting motivated forgetting
*Instructions to forget
* Motivated context shifts and changes in stimulus environment
* intentional retrieval suppression
* extreme emotional distress
2 Directed forgetting procedures
Item-method directed forgetting
List-method directed forgetting
Item-method directed forgetting procedure
- participants receive a series of items to remember
- after each item an instruction appears indicating whether they should either continue to remember it or forget it
- then they are tested on all words.
- Recall for to-be-forgotten items is substantially worse than for to-be-remembered-items
2 teorier om item-method directed forgetting effects
*Selective rehearsal hypothesis: Some theorists believe the effects reflect differential episodic encoding(participants refrain from elaborate rehearsal until given instruction - then remember instruction would trigger elaborate semantic encoding, whereas forgotten item gives permission to simply release attention from the word)
- encoding suppression: many studies have shown greater effort associated with forgetting than with remembering, which goes against selective rehearsal hypothesis and suggests an active forgetting process = encoding suppression
Mnemic neglect effect
suggests that people’s desire to view themselves favorably leads them to limit the encoding of negative feedback - people seem to regulate their memory to protect their self-image
List method of directed forgetting procedure + 2 consistently observed findings
Presents the instruction to forget only after the first list has been studied, usually as a surprise. Then they receive a second list. They are then compared with a remember-group(som instrueras att komma ihåg både första och andra listan).
2 consistently observed findings:
1. Forget-group better at recalling second list
2. Forget-group worse at recalling first list
= The instruction to forget has the benefit of negating the proactive interference the first list has on the recall of the second list, but at the cost of reduced ability to recall the first list.
Features that distinguish list-method directed forgetting from forgetting observed with the item method
- Unlikely that participants use shallow encoding for first-list items since they are not given a hint that they will have to forget until entire first list is studied = more likely does something to disrupt later retrieval.
- Consistent with this, the effect disappears when recognition is tested instead of recall(i item method e det effekt på recognition tests också)
- Items in the list-method reveal their presence on implicit memory tests(sometimes the to-be-forgotten items even exert greater influence on behavior in implicit memory tests)
2 leading theories of list-method directed forgetting
Retrieval inhibition hypothesis: the instruction to forget the first list inhibits recall for the items on that list, impairing recall. However, the inhibition doesn’t do permanent damage, and the memories remain available - it merely limits retrieval by reducing activation of the unwanted items.
Context shift hypothesis: instructions to forget mentally separate the 2 lists. If a person’s mental context changes between the first and second list and if the second list context remains active during the final test, the to-be-forgotten items(first list) should be recalled more poorly because the new context is a poor retrieval cue for them.
How may avoidance of cues facilitate normal forgetting processes.
*Avoidance of reminders deprives a memory of retrievals that ordinarily strengthen and preserve it. Preventing reactivation of the trace should encourage the decay process
* By changing the physical environment, the mental context within which one operates will come to mismatch the one in which the event took place, hindering retrieval. If the new context allows a person to recover, mood context will change, making spontaneous retrieval of the event less likely
Think/no-think paradigm:
A procedure designed to study the ability to volitionally suppress retrieval of a memory when confronted with reminders. Modeled after the go/no go-procedure
Basic version av testet:
- Deltagarna lär in word-pairs(ex, ordeal-roach) tills the cue(ordeal) får dom att recall the target(roach).
- Sen gör dom ett test där dom visas cues, och oftast ska dom recall the paired word - men för vissa cues (t.ex om ordeal står i röd text), ska dom försöka undvika att tänka på the paired word.
- För att mäta påverkan av försöket att suppress retrieval gör man ett final test där dom får alla cues och ska recall the target för varje cue, oavsett tidigare instruktioner.
* Resultaten visar att folk e mkt sämre på o komma ihåg “no-think” words än “think” words.
Vad är Total memory control effect o hur kan denna separeras till 2 olika effekter
Total memory control effect : skillnaden mellan hur bra folk kommer ihåg “think-words” och “no-think words”.
Genom att inkludera ett tredje set som inte är med under think/no-think fasen(baseline items) kan man separat mäta effekten av retrieval och retrieval suppression.
Positive control effect: enhanced memory recall for “think” items compared to baseline recall, arising from intentionally facilitating retrieval(positive control)
Negative control effect/suppression-induced forgetting: memory deficit for “no-think” items compared to baseline recall, arising from intentional stopping of retrieval. Thus, when people suppress remindings, presenting cues trigger processes that impair memory, precisely the opposite to what happens with intentional retrieval.
Brain mechanisms underlying retrieval suppression
- Suppressing retrieval recruits a network of brain regions including right lateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex - this network overlaps with that involved in motor inhibition(right lateral prefrontal cortex is especially critical in stopping reflexive motor action)
(this overlap is consistent with the possibility that stopping unwanted actions and memories engages a common inhibition process) - Studies have linked increased hippocampal activation to retrieval of one’s past. And studies have found reduced hippocampal activity when suppressing retrieval. Ability to shut down hippocampal retrieval processes has been shown to rely upon inhibitory interneurons within the hippocampus that disengage retrieval, driven by inputs from the prefrontal cortex.
