Buffered forgetting: When targets and distractors are both forgotten

Weeks, Clinton S.; Humphreys, Michael S.; Hockley, William E.

doi:10.3758/bf03193600

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This body of work has produced specific support for the assumption that the use of context with explicit but not implicit retrieval instructions is a major factor in the processes differentiating the effects of these instructions (Humphreys et al, 2000a(Humphreys et al, , 2000bTehan et al). It has also supported the idea of pre-access control processes (Humphreys et al, 2003;Weeks et al). Most importantly it has provided guidance in the design of the current set of experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Control of access to memory: The use of task interference as a behavioral probe

Loft¹,

Humphreys

Whitney

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Directed forgetting and prospective memory methods were combined to examine differences in the control of memory access. Between studying two lists of target words, participants were either instructed to forget the first list, or to continue remembering the first list. After study participants performed a lexical decision task with an additional requirement to respond with a designated key to targets from one or both of the lists. List discrimination performance supported the assumption that contextual representations associated with the two lists are more differentiated following forget instructions. Test instructions which directed participants towards both lists or to particular list(s) were more or less compatible with these contextual representations. Lexical decisions on non-target trials were slower when test instructions were compatible with study contexts compared to when incompatible, indicating that contexts reinstated by test instructions influenced the complexity of memory access. This finding is most compatible with theories of memory which locate an important component of control at the pre-decision stage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Control of access to memory: The use of task interference as a behavioral probe

Loft¹,

Humphreys

Whitney

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He concluded that memory for word pairs is "more resistant to the effects of decay, interference from intervening events, or both" than is memory for single items (Hockley, 1992(Hockley, , p. 1328. However, Weeks, Humphreys, and Hockley (2007) later argued that Hockley's (1991Hockley's ( , 1992 finding of flat forgetting curves did not show a complete absence of forgetting, but instead suggested that interference was affecting targets and distractors in the same way. Nevertheless, it may be that there is no significant effect of list length when the stimuli are word pairs, simply because they are resistant to the influence of interference from other study pairs.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Word Pairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of stimulus type in list length effects in recognition memory

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While many studies have investigated the list length effect in recognition memory, few have done so with stimuli other than words. This article presents the results of four list length experiments that involved word pairs, faces, fractals, and photographs of scenes as the stimuli. A significant list length effect was identified when faces and fractals were the stimuli, but the effect was nonsignificant when the stimuli were word pairs or photographs of scenes. These findings suggest that the intrastimulus similarity is what dictates whether list length has a significant effect on recognition performance. As is the case with words, word pairs and photographs of scenes are not sufficiently similar to generate detectable item interference.

show abstract

“…Underwood found no build up of proactive interference when study participants were able to use category cues to support memory. Researchers have subsequently shown that when attempting to recall, for example, to a particular metal cue individuals use a representation of the context (e.g., the day the materials were learned) as an additional cue (Humphreys, Bain, & Pike, 1989; Weeks, Humphreys, & Hockley, 2007). When the contextual cue is similar across instances of learning (e.g., other days of study) there is proactive interference.…”

Section: Initial Sponsorship Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Sponsorship, ambushing, and counter-strategy: Effects upon memory for sponsor and event.

Humphreys¹,

Cornwell²,

McAlister³

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporate sponsorship of sports, causes, and the arts has become a mainstream communications tool worldwide. The unique marketing opportunities associated with major events also attract nonsponsoring companies seeking to form associations with the event (ambushing). There are strategies available to brands and events which have been ambushed; however, there is only limited information about the effects of those strategies on attainment of sponsorship objectives. In Experiment 1, university staff and students participated by studying paragraphs linking a sponsor to a novel event. Relative to each sponsor-event pair, they then studied one of three different messages about a competitor. Results find a message which linked the competitor and the event increased competitor recall given the event as a cue and event recall given the competitor as a cue. These effects were moderated if there was information about the competitor not being the sponsor. In Experiment 2 ambushing and counter-ambushing information was presented over 2 days. Both types of messages increased competitor recall given the event as a cue and event recall given the competitor as a cue. In addition, "not sponsor" information was not always used even when it should have been recallable. The results can be explained if participants are using three cues: a specific cue such as a brand name, a contextual cue, and a category cue, such as the concept of an event. Findings suggest to sponsoring firms and event properties that counter-ambushing communications may have the unintended effect of strengthening an ambusher-event relationship in memory.

show abstract

Buffered forgetting: When targets and distractors are both forgotten

Cited by 10 publications

References 38 publications

Control of access to memory: The use of task interference as a behavioral probe

Control of access to memory: The use of task interference as a behavioral probe

The role of stimulus type in list length effects in recognition memory

Sponsorship, ambushing, and counter-strategy: Effects upon memory for sponsor and event.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About