The subjective experience of retrieval-induced forgetting

Abstract

The objective was to examine whether the lower accessibility of studied items (Rp−) that follows retrieval practice with studied items from the same category (Rp+; retrieval-induced forgetting) is correctly monitored by our cognitive system. If monitored, lower confidence for Rp− items would be expected which, in turn, would allow the control of the retrieval-induced forgetting through the report option. In Experiment 1 the standard retrieval-practice paradigm with categorised word lists was followed by a recognition test with confidence rating and the option to report or withhold the answer. Accuracy showed retrieval-induced forgetting, but there were no differences in confidence. The report option did not affect retrieval-induced forgetting. The confidence–accuracy dissociation could be due to a correct monitoring of the retrieval-induced forgetting joined with a factor that incorrectly increases confidence for Rp− items. Familiarity with the practised category was proposed as this factor and tested in Experiment 2. Despite presenting the categories more times during the retrieval-practice phase to increase their familiarity, confidence ratings were unaffected. In conclusion, this research suggests that retrieval-induced forgetting was not monitored, giving rise to a confidence–accuracy dissociation.

Keywords:

• Retrieval-induced forgetting
• Metamemory
• Confidence
• Report option
• Familiarity

We thank Teresa Bajo for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

We thank Teresa Bajo for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

¹ Retrospective confidence may refer either to a judgement that probes relate to studied items, or to a judgement that the answer is correct. We consider that these two types of judgements are based in the same psychological representation of confidence (cf. Higham, Perfect, & Bruno, 2009), and thus use the term in either way.