Retrieval-induced versus context-induced forgetting: Does retrieval-induced forgetting depend on context shifts?

Abstract

Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is the observation that retrieval of target information causes forgetting of related nontarget information. A number of accounts of this phenomenon have been proposed, including a context-shift-based account (Jonker, Seli, & Macleod, 2013). This account proposes that RIF occurs as a result of the context shift from study to retrieval practice, provided there is little context shift between retrieval practice and test phases. We tested both claims put forth by this context account. In Experiment 1, we degraded the context shift between study and retrieval practice by implementing a generative study condition that was highly similar to retrieval practice. We observed no degradation of RIF for these generated exemplars relative to a conventional study control. In Experiment 2, we conceptually replicated the finding of RIF following generative study, and tested whether context differences between each of the three phases affected the size of RIF. Our findings were again contrary to the predictions of the context account. Conjointly, the 2 experiments refute arguments about the potential inadequacy of our context shifts that could be used to explain either result alone. Overall, our results are most consistent with an inhibitory account of RIF (e.g., Anderson, 2003).

Figure 1

Mean difference scores reflecting the retrieval benefit of retrieval practice in low frequency (Rp+ and Nrp[+]) items observed in Experiment 1. These difference scores reflect the proportion of retrieval practiced (Rp+) items relative to baseline items in comparable non-retrieval practiced categories (Nrp[+]; i.e., Rp+ - Nrp[+]). As such, positive values indicate more of a retrieval benefit. The conventionally studied condition is indicted by “Study” whereas the generative study condition is indicated by “Generate.” Error bars indicate standard error of the means, but they should viewed cautiously as the experiment was fully within subjects.

Figure 2

Mean difference scores reflecting the retrieval-induced forgetting in high frequency (Rp− and Nrp[−]) items observed by condition in Experiment 1. These difference scores reflect the proportion of non-target items in retrieval practiced categories (Rp−) relative to baseline items in comparable non-retrieval practiced categories (Nrp[−]; i.e., Nrp[−] – Rp−). As such, positive values indicate more RIF. The conventionally studied condition is indicted by “Study” whereas the generative study condition is indicated by “Generate.” Error bars indicate standard error of the means, but they should viewed cautiously as the experiment was fully within subjects.

Figure 3

Mean difference scores reflecting the retrieval benefit in low frequency (Rp+ and Nrp[+]) items observed by condition in Experiment 2. These difference scores reflect the proportion of retrieval practiced (Rp+) items relative to baseline items in comparable non-retrieval practiced categories (Nrp[+]), (i.e., Rp+ - Nrp[+]). As such, positive values indicate more of a retrieval benefit. The first letter indicates the context of Learning, the second letter signifies the context of retrieval practice and the last letter indicates the context of Test. These results indicate a robust effect of retrieval practice on retrieval practiced items (i.e., the testing effect). Error bars indicate standard error of the means, but they should viewed cautiously as the experiment was fully within subjects. Note that the vertical scale used here differs from that of Figure 1.

Figure 4

Mean difference scores reflecting the retrieval-induced forgetting in high frequency (Rp− and Nrp[−]) items observed by condition in Experiment 2. These difference scores reflect the proportion of non-target items in retrieval practiced categories (Rp−) relative to baseline items in comparable non-retrieval practiced categories (Nrp[−]), (i.e., Nrp[−] – Rp−). As such, positive values indicate more RIF. The first letter indicates the context of Learning, the second letter signifies the context of retrieval practice and the last letter indicates the context of test. Error bars indicate standard error of the means, but they should viewed cautiously as the experiment was fully within subjects. Note that the vertical scale used here differs from that of Figure 2.