Retrieval‐induced forgetting of autobiographical memory details

Abstract

Several studies suggest that intrusive and overgeneral autobiographical memory are correlated. Thus, paradoxically, in some patients a hyperaccessibility of memory for one (series of) event(s) goes hand‐in‐hand with a scarcity of memories for other personal experiences. This clinical observation is reminiscent of the laboratory phenomenon of retrieval‐induced forgetting (RIF). This refers to the finding that repeatedly recalling some experimental stimuli impairs subsequent recall of related (i.e., tied to the same retrieval cue) stimuli. RIF of emotional autobiographical memories might provide an experimental model for the clinical memory phenomena in question. The present paper reports two experiments that explored the merits of applying the retrieval practice paradigm to relatively broad categories of autobiographical memories. Both studies found a significant RIF effect in that practised memories were recalled better than unrelated unpractised (baseline) memories. In addition, unpractised memories that were related to the practised memories were recalled more poorly than baseline memories. Implications of these findings for modelling the co‐occurrence of intrusive and overgeneral memories are discussed.

Notes

Preparation of this article was supported by grant 452‐03‐329 of the Foundation for Behavioural and Educational Sciences of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific research (NWO) awarded to Dr Wessel.

We gratefully acknowledge Marten van der Braak, Stefan Nouwen, and Laura Klein for their assistance in the data collection and scoring. Johan Verwoerd and Peter de Jong are thanked for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Emotionality ratings were as follows. In the positive Rp+ group means were 5.40 (SD = 2.01), 5.70 (SD = 2.16) and 5.34 (SD = 2.19) for Rp+, nRp, and Rp−, respectively. In the negative Rp+ group means were 5.83 (SD = 1.32), 5.68 (SD = 1.63) and 5.93 (SD = 1.43) for Rp+, nRp, and Rp−, respectively.

Nouns were: theft (diefstal), lie (leugen), disappointment (teleurstelling), quarrel (ruzie), accident (ongeluk), heartache (liefdesverdriet), stench (stank), danger (gevaar), blunder (blunder), and loss (verlies). Adjectives were: selfish (egoïstisch), stupid (dom), mean (gierig), impudent (brutaal), indecisive (besluiteloos), stubborn (koppig), pessimistic (pessimistisch), sneaky (achterbaks), arrogant (arrogant) and domineering (bazig).

Mean emotionality and valence ratings were calculated for all Rp+, nRp, and Rp− AMs. No other comparisons between the traits and situations Rp groups were significant.

Two participants in the situations Rp group did not report Rp− memories at all, leaving 38 participants for this analysis.