Selective retrieval and induced forgetting in eyewitness memory

Abstract

This study analyses retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) in eyewitness memory. Selective retrieval of specific information about an event could cause eyewitnesses to forget related contents. Based on a video of a man being robbed while withdrawing money from a cash machine, we examined the effects of partial retrieval on the most relevant aspects of the event: actions (Experiment 1) and offender characteristics (Experiment 2), in both immediate and long-term recall (24 hours). In both experiments long-term recall was a replica of immediate recall for correct information as well as errors. The effects of partial retrieval practice were also repeated in long-term recall. Conventional RIF was found for offender characteristics but selective retrieval of the actions of the event produced no comparable effect. It is assumed that the organisation and integration of the actions of the event protected them from RIF. rather than being a negative aspect of memory, the act of forgetting is an indication of proper memory function. In order to retrieve information effectively, we need to rely on a mechanism that can resolve interference from memories that compete for recall Bjork, 1989), a mechanism that blocks or inhibits the retrieval of competing items. A procedure widely used to explore forgetting triggered by inhibitory processes is the retrieval practice paradigm .The classic paradigm has four phases: study, retrieval practice, distractor task and final recall task. In the encoding phase participants are given lists of category-exemplar pairs (e.g. fruit-orange, drink-gin). Next, they practice retrieving half of the studied exemplars from half of the categories, prompted by cues to facilitate recall (e.g. fruit-or___). Following a distractor task, participants are given the names of the categories (e.g. fruit, drinks) and asked to recall all of the studied elements. Recall of three types of elements is assessed: practiced elements (e.g. orange, Rpþ items), unpracticed elements from the practiced category (e.g. apple, RpÀ items) and unpracticed elements from the categories without retrieval practice (e.g. gin, Nrp elements) which serve as a baseline. This paradigm APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Retrieval-induced forgetting and mental imagery

“…The results of Experiment 3 replicate the findings that a 24-h delay abolishes the retrieval-induced forgetting effect (Carroll et al, 2007;Mac Leod & Macrae, 2001;Saunders & Mac Leod, 2002) and that pre-delay and post-delay tests maintain the effect (Migueles & García-Bajos, 2007;Storm et al, 2006). These results suggest that methodological differences between studies on delay can explain some of the different findings across studies.…”

“…Studies by Carroll, Campbell-Ratcliffe, Murnane, and Perfect (2007), MacLeod and Macrae (2001), and Saunders and Mac Leod (2002) found that retrieval-induced forgetting dissipates when the retrieval practice and test phases are separated by 24 h. Salmon (2005, 2006) and Ford, Keating, and Patel (2004) found that retrieval-induced forgetting is present after 24 h, even though retrieval practice was spaced across several days. Further studies have found that significant retrieval-induced forgetting persists at 24-h (Migueles & García-Bajos, 2007) and 1-week delays (Storm et al, 2006); however, memory for all items was tested on two separate occasions: directly after retrieval practice and after a lengthy delay. Only one study (García-Bajos, Migueles, & Anderson, 2009) has used the same methodology as Mac Leod and Macrae's, and they found significant retrieval-induced forgetting after a 1-week delay (i.e., they tested memory only once, and all the retrieval practice tasks occurred on the same day).…”

“…We used the same methodology as that used by Mac Leod and Macrae (2001) and contrasted it with the methodology used by Migueles and García-Bajos (2007) and Storm et al (2006). Specifically, the mental imagery and final test will be separated by 24 h in one condition (Mac Leod & Macrae, 2001); in a second condition, a predelay test will be issued, as will another memory test, after 24 h (Migueles & García-Bajos, 2007;Storm et al, 2006).…”

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

“…First, as described earlier, the impairment in recall performance for the tested participants relative to the nontested participants was only marginally significant. Second, our materials were highly coherent and interconnected in nature, and materials like these are highly resistant to retrieval-induced forgetting (Chan, 2009;Chan & LaPaglia, 2011;Migueles & Garcia-Bajos, 2007). Third, and perhaps most intriguingly, the decrement in performance for the tested participants might be the result of these participants noticing the inconsistencies between their memory of the video and the misinformation.…”

Semantic integration as a boundary condition on inhibitory processes in episodic retrieval.

“…The dependency of RIF on interference suggests that RIF occurs as a response to interference, consistent with a role of inhibition in this phenomenon. Some investigators have also found that RIF dissipates after 24 hr (Baran, Wilson, & Spencer, 2010;Chan, 2009;MacLeod & Macrae, 2001;Saunders & MacLeod, 2002), although other studies have found RIF to be unaltered in magnitude after a day (Conroy & Salmon, 2005Ford, Keating, & Patel, 2004;Migueles & Garcia-Bajos, 2007) or even after a week (GarciaBajos et al, 2009;Migueles & Garcia-Bajos, 2007;Storm, Bjork, Bjork, & Nestojko, 2006;Tandoh & Naka, 2007). Most importantly, for present purposes, the amount of RIF depends on associations linking the memory target to its competitors: When the associates of a cue are connected to one another, retrieving some of them no longer impairs the recall of their competitors, a phenomenon known as an integration effect (Anderson & McCulloch, 1999).…”