Inhibition in goal systems: A retrieval-induced forgetting account

Abstract

In social psychological models of goals, particular means or goals that receive more activation are pursued while their counterparts are "inhibited." To account for inhibition, these theories emphasize structural distribution of resources and the consequences of goal or means choices. Absent are alternate accounts of inhibition based on memory processes that rely on retrieval or recall of items. We propose that the act of recalling means or goals from memory entails inhibition of competing alternatives. Two experiments using repeated retrieval paradigms present evidence that recalling one means associated with a particular goal inhibits competing means. Moreover, this inhibitory mechanism is sensitive to the structural relationship of goals and means. Implications for models of inhibition in goal pursuit are discussed.

Reflective and Automatic Processes in the Initiation and Maintenance of Dietary Change

“…Thus, when people practice one response, alternative responses become less accessible in memory [24,62]. This deactivation plausibly bolsters the dominance of habits in a given context because people are unable to readily bring to mind alternatives.…”

Turnout as a Habit

“…Also, alternative responses may be deactivated in memory when one choice is made repeatedly (McCulloch et al 2008). Through ideomotor processes that connect thinking to doing, people then may act on the response that they have in mind (Bargh and Chartrand 1999).…”

The Effects of Construal Levels on Asymmetric Temptation-Goal Cognitive Associations

“…Fishbach and colleagues (2003) also note that although most cognitive associations between concepts are bi-directional, a reciprocal pattern of associations between temptations and goals would be detrimental to self-control. That is, although the activation of goals by temptations enhances self-control, the activation of temptations by goals should be detrimental as it would re-activate those very thoughts that undermine and disrupt one's goal-striving efforts (see also Gollwitzer, 1990;McCulloch, Aarts, Fujita, & Bargh, 2008;Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002). Accordingly, Fishbach and colleagues (2003) propose that to promote self-control, temptation-goal associations should be asymmetrical.…”

“…However, all of the empirical evidence that support the inhibition of temptations by goals has been obtained using sequential priming methodology (see also Papies et al, 2008;Stroebe et al, 2008). The ability to infer inhibition of concepts from sequential priming methods has been called into question by a number of scholars (e.g., Anderson & Spellman, 1995;Levy & Anderson, 2002;McCulloch et al, 2008). Specifically, rather than reflect true inhibition of targets, slower reaction times for a particular prime-target pairing may result from weakened prime-target associations (i.e., associations that can more easily be interfered with and disrupted).…”