Abstract
Recall of a portion of a previously experienced list benefits subsequent recall of that portion of the list but leads to poorer recall of nonpracticed items from the same set (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). One explanation for this retrieval-induced forgetting is that during practice of part of a set, the nonpracticed items compete for recall and are suppressed; this suppression process inhibits later recall of the nonpracticed items. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the relationship between distinctive processing of the original set and retrieval-induced forgetting, on the assumption that distinctive processing reduces response competition. In the first experiment, distinctive processing induced by difference judgments among the studied items did reduce forgetting relative to a standard encoding task and a similarity judgment task. In fact, the difference judgment task completely eliminated retrieval-induced forgetting. In the second experiment, the similarity judgment task was analyzed in relation to a task assumed to foster associative integration (Anderson & McCulloch,1999). Even though the similarity judgment met the requirements for associative integration, retrieval-induced forgetting persisted following similarity judgment. The results are consistent with the view that distinctive processing benefits memory within an organizational context (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993; Smith & Hunt, in press).
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., &Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1063–1087.
Anderson, M. C., &McCulloch, K. C. (1999). Integration as a general boundary condition on retrieval-induced forgetting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 608–629.
Anderson, M. C., &Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case.Psychological Review,102, 68–100.
Begg, I. (1978). Similarity and contrast in memory for relations.Memory & Cognition,6, 509–517.
Hunt, R. R., &Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 497–514.
Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.
Hunt, R. R., &Smith, R. E. (1996). Accessing the particular from the general: The power of distinctiveness in the context of organization.Memory & Cognition,24, 217–225.
Mäntylä, T. (1986). Optimizing cue effectiveness: Recall of 500 and 600 incidentally learned words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 66–71.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.
Shaw, J. S., III,Bjork, R. A., &Handal, A. (1995). Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness-memory paradigm.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 249–253.
Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (in press). The effects of distinctiveness require reinstatement of organization: The importance of intentional memory instructions.Journal of Memory & Language.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, R.E., Hunt, R.R. The influence of distinctive processing on retrieval-induced forgetting. Mem Cogn 28, 503–508 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201240
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201240