List-method directed forgetting after prolonged retention interval: Further challenges to contemporary accounts
List-method directed forgetting after prolonged retention interval: Further challenges to contemporary accounts
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jml.2019.02.002
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Baeuml, Karl-Heinz T.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Abel, Magdalena;Baeuml, Karl-Heinz T.
大量关于表法定向遗忘（LMDF）的研究表明，人们可以在受到提示的情况下自愿忘记信息。但这种遗忘形式背后的认知机制仍存在争议。本研究主要探讨了两种解释：选择性排练和心理情境改变。实验1通过比较LMDF和情境依赖性遗忘的持久性来解释情境改变的解释。结果表明，LMDF是持久的，而不是情境依赖性遗忘，这与情境改变说不一致。实验2和3通过检查LMDF的持久性是否取决于（有意或无意）编码项目的状态以及研究和测试之间的分心物活动类型（要求或不要求）来解决选择性排练问题。结果表明，LMDF在有意和无意学习的项目中都持续存在，但在非要求的分心任务后不存在，这与选择性排练的解释不一致。目前的研究结果既挑战了情境变化和选择性排练的说法，也挑战了双机制观点，该观点认为两种类型的机制在LMDF中都起作用。
Numerous studies on list-method directed forgetting (LMDF) have shown that people can voluntarily forget information when cued to do so. But the cognitive mechanism(s) behind this form of forgetting are still subject to debate. The present study focused on two explanations of LMDF: selective rehearsal and mental context change. Experiment 1 addressed the context-change account by comparing the persistence of LMDF with that of context-dependent forgetting. Results showed that LMDF, but not context-dependent forgetting, was lasting, which is inconsistent with the context-change account. Experiments 2 and 3 addressed the selective-rehearsal account by examining whether persistence of LMDF depends on the status of (intentionally vs. incidentally) encoded items and the type of distractor activity (demanding vs. undemanding) between study and test. Results showed that LMDF was lasting for both intentionally and incidentally studied items but was absent after an undemanding distractor task, which disagrees with the selective-rehearsal account. The present findings challenge both the context-change and the selective-rehearsal account as well as a dual-mechanisms view, which assumes a role of both types of mechanisms in LMDF.