1996
DOI: 10.1006/ccog.1996.0025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inhibition, Contextual Segregation, and Subject Strategies in List Method Directed Forgetting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the costs of directed forgetting are consistently found in directed forgetting studies irrespective of sample size, the benefits have not always achieved significance, even though the means were in the predicted direction (e.g., Conway, Harries, Noyes, Racsma'ny, & Frankish, 2000, Exp 1;Whetstone, Cross, & Whetstone, 1996). Both studies cited here that did not find significant benefits had smaller sample sizes than were used in similar studies successfully detecting the directed forgetting benefits.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the costs of directed forgetting are consistently found in directed forgetting studies irrespective of sample size, the benefits have not always achieved significance, even though the means were in the predicted direction (e.g., Conway, Harries, Noyes, Racsma'ny, & Frankish, 2000, Exp 1;Whetstone, Cross, & Whetstone, 1996). Both studies cited here that did not find significant benefits had smaller sample sizes than were used in similar studies successfully detecting the directed forgetting benefits.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…1;Geiselman et al, 1983, Exp. 3;Whetstone et al, 1996), and even sometimes being larger than the costs (Geiselman et al, 1983, Exp. 2, Exp.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Experiment 2, the test instructions informed all participants to respond to both lists during the lexical decision task. Half of the participants were also told that they would be required to discriminate list membership (respond-all-discriminate; Whetstone, Cross, & Whetstone, 1996), while the other half were not given this additional requirement (respond-all). The reason for choosing this specific manipulation is that the respond-all-discriminate condition gives us a direct measure of list discrimination.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it examines the ability to "control the contents of consciousness" (Whetstone, Cross, & Whetstone, 1996). Two methods are commonly used (Basden & Basden, 1996;Basden, Basden, & Gargano, 1993;MacLeod, 1998MacLeod, , 1999: (1) the item-by-item cueing method (i.e., word method), which tends to induce rehearsal mechanisms during encoding and (2) the list cueing method (i.e., list method), where "forget" instructions are provided after the first half of the list and "remember" instructions occur after the second half, which requires a specific effort to forget and/or control for context changes.…”
Section: Directed Forgettingmentioning
confidence: 99%