Inhibition and interference in the think/no-think task

Abstract

Five experiments using the think/no-think (TNT) procedure investigated the effect of the no-think and substitute instructions on cued recall. In Experiment 1, when unrelated A-B paired associates were studied and cued for recall with A items, recall rates were reliably enhanced in the think condition and reliably impaired below baseline in the no-think condition. In Experiments 2 and 5, final recall was cued with B items, leading to reliably higher recall rates, as compared with baseline, in both the think and no-think conditions. This pattern indicates backward priming of no-think items. In Experiments 3 and 4, the no-think instruction was replaced with a thought substitution instruction, and participants were asked to think of another word instead of the studied one when they saw the no-think cued items. As in Experiments 1 and 2, the same amount of forgetting of B items was observed when A items were the cues, but in contrast to Experiment 2, there was no increase in the recall performance of A items when B items were the cues. These results suggest that not thinking of studied items or, alternatively, thinking of a substitute item to avoid a target item may involve different processes: the former featuring inhibition and the latter interference.

Cue-independent forgetting by intentional suppression – Evidence for inhibition as the mechanism of intentional forgetting

“…Finally, memory for all of the target words is tested (e.g., ordeal-r__). Results have shown that recall for the suppressed targets is worse than recall for the baseline targets (on which neither Think nor No-think training has been given), providing the first evidence that intentional suppression is able to cause memory impairment (e.g., Benoit & Anderson, 2012;Bergstrom, de Fockert, & Richardson-Klavehn, 2009;Depue, Curran, & Banich, 2007;Joormann, Hertel, LeMoult, & Gotlib, 2009;Kim & Yi, 2013;Lambert, Good, & Kirk, 2010;Levy & Anderson, 2008;Racsmany, Conway, Keresztes, & Krajcsi, 2012; van Schie, Geraerts, & Anderson, 2013;Waldhauser, Lindgren, & Johansson, 2012). Anderson and Green (2001) suggested that the underlying mechanism of voluntary suppression was different from that of the traditional interference approach.…”

The impact of intermediate-term alcohol abstinence on memory retrieval and suppression

“…While the vast majority of the TNT literature supports the notion that intentional cognitive control improves inhibition of retrieval, it has to be stated that some studies did not replicate these results ( Mecklinger et al, 2009 ; Dieler et al, 2010 ). However, participant instructions ( Racsmány et al, 2012 ), demand on cognitive processes and especially working memory as well as strategy might significantly influence behavioral results on the TNT task, which need further exploration ( Raaijmakers and Jakab, 2012 ; Festini and Reuter-Lorenz, 2013 ).…”

Memory suppression and its deficiency in psychological disorders: A focused meta-analysis

“…This pattern may tie in with their general cognitive control deficits, given that direct retrieval suppression is presumably cognitively more 745 demanding than thought substitution. Indeed, only the former mechanism is thought to be associated with top-down inhibitory control processes (e.g., Racsmány et al, 2012;Bergström et al, 2009). Therefore, while it is generally fruitful to aid suppression by prescribing a specific mechanism through precise instructions, it is also important to choose a mechanism suitable to the targeted population.…”

“…However, in many situations, preventing retrieval may also hinder subsequent recall of the unwanted memory by non-inhibitory processes such as associative interference (Verde, 2013;Racsmány, Conway, Keresztes, & Krajcsi, A., 2012;Tomlinson, Huber, Rieth, & Davelaar, 2009;Hertel & Calcaterra, 2005). Interference may particularly 695 contribute to forgetting following thought substitution, which likely strengthens the association between the cue (e.g., TOMATO) and the alternate thought or memory that participants had retrieved (e.g., CLOWN) to prevent the unwanted target memory from coming to mind (e.g.…”