Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep;71(5):278-297.
doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000630. Epub 2024 Dec 11.

Directed Forgetting and the Production Effect

Jackie Spear  1 , J Nick Reid  2 , Dominic Guitard  3 , Randall K Jamieson  1
Affiliations

Directed Forgetting and the Production Effect

Jackie Spear et al. Exp Psychol. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

The item-based directed-forgetting effect is explained as a difference in how strongly people encode remember-cued over forget-cued targets. In contrast, the production effect is typically explained as a difference in the distinctiveness of the memory of produced over unproduced targets. The procedural alignment of the two effects - directing participants to remember or forget, produce or not - coupled with their different theoretical explanations (i.e., strength vs. distinctiveness) presents an opportunity to investigate common versus differential effects of elaborative encoding. This study aims to bridge the gap between these two well-established phenomena by comparing the differences in directed forgetting and the production effect in the context of recognition. Mixed- and pure-list designs were utilized to provide an index of each of these mechanisms in both procedures. Along with a standard production effect and directed forgetting effect in the mixed-list conditions, we found evidence for strength primarily driving results in both procedures. Results are explained using a global matching model of recognition memory, MINERVA 2, by assuming varying levels of encoding strength in relation to task demands. Critically, we obtain the best fit using a strength mechanism over a combined strength and distinctiveness mechanism for our data.

Keywords: MINERVA 2; directed forgetting; production effect.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results from Experiment 1. Error bars represent standard errors of the means.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results from Experiment 2. Error bars represent standard errors of the means.
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the two study procedures. The after study procedure was used in Experiments 1 and 2, and the during study procedure was used in Experiment 3. The duration of stimulus presentation is displayed on the right, whereas ISI is displayed on the left.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Results from Experiment 3. Error bars represent standard errors of the means.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Simulation results of the production effect in Experiment 1 integrating strength and distinctiveness. Mixed-list parameters: L = 0.057 for produced targets, L = 0.057 for read targets, and the number of extra production features for produced targets was 250. The decision criterion was set to a slightly conservative value of 0.4625. Error bars represent standard deviations. Dotted lines represent corresponding empirical means.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Simulation results of the production effect data in Experiment 1 assuming only strength. Mixed-list parameters: L = 0.0425 for produced targets and L = 0.0375 for read targets. There were no extra production features in the second simulation, as we did not assume any contributions of distinctiveness. The decision criterion was set to a slightly conservative value of 0.4625. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Simulation results of the directed forgetting data in Experiment 2. Parameters: L = 0.050 for R-cued targets and L = 0.026 for F-cued targets, and the number of extra elaborative features was 250. The decision criterion was set to a conservative value of 0.3875. Error bars represent standard deviations, and dotted lines represent corresponding empirical means.
Figure 8
Figure 8. Simulation results of the directed forgetting data in Experiment 2. Parameters: L = 0.0425 for R-cued targets and L = 0.0226 for F-cued targets. The decision criterion was set to a conservative value of 0.3875. Error bars represent standard deviations, and dotted lines represent corresponding empirical means.
Figure 9
Figure 9. Simulation results of the mixed-list production effect data in Experiment 3. Parameters: L = 0.0425 for produce targets and L = 0.0375 for read targets. The decision criterion was set to a slightly conservative value of 0.4625, as in Experiment 1. Error bars represent standard deviations, and dotted lines represent corresponding empirical means.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Aguirre, C., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T. (2020). Selective directed forgetting: Eliminating output order and demand characteristics explanations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1514–1522. 10.1177/1747021820915100 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen, S. W., & Vokey, J. R. (1998). Directed forgetting and rehearsal on direct and indirect memory tests. In Golding J. M. & MacLeod C. M. (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 173–195). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    1. Arndt, J., & Hirshman, E. (1998). True and false recognition in MINERVA2: Explanations from a global matching perspective. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 371–391. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2581 - DOI
    1. Begg, I., & Snider, A. (1987). The generation effect: Evidence for generalized inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 553–563. 10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.553 - DOI
    1. Bjork, R. A. (1989). Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. In H. L. Roediger, III & Craik F. I. M. (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 309–330). Erlbaum.

LinkOut - more resources