Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBarnhardt, Terrence Matthew.
dc.creatorBarnhardt, Terrence Matthew.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-31T18:03:31Z
dc.date.available2011-10-31T18:03:31Z
dc.date.issued1993en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/186256
dc.description.abstractA retrieval disruption construal of suppression during directed forgetting (DF) was examined. It was argued that it is often difficult to distinguish between retrieval disruption, response disruption, and differential rehearsal interpretations of DF effects. To circumvent the problem of response disruption, two types of tests--exclusive (i.e., interference) and implicit--were used. To circumvent the problem of differential rehearsal, incidentally studied items and a list segregation instruction were utilized. Intraserial cuing (i.e., cuing by item sets) was used in all four experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, the exclusive test was stem-cued recall and the implicit test was stem completion. In Experiment 1, unique stems (i.e., stems that did not share words across study lists) were used. A DF effect was found only in the exclusive test and only with intentionally studied items. It was argued that a methodological artifact obscured the DF effect in the incidentally studied items. In Experiment 2, repeated stems (i.e., stems that shared words across study lists) were used. The use of repeated stems allowed intrusion rates to be measured. A DF effect was again found only in the exclusive test, but this time in both intentionally and incidentally studied items. In Experiment 3, only a free recall exclusive test was used. A DF effect was found only in the intrusions. Again, it was possible that a methodological artifact obscured the DF effect in the exclusive test. In Experiment 4, Jacoby's (1991) exclusive recognition test was utilized. One half of the subjects was instructed to emphasize accuracy and the other half was not so instructed. A speed-accuracy tradeoff was observed such that the uninstructed group was faster, but displayed a relatively large number of "new"-old errors. In the uninstructed group, a DF effect was observed, but this effect was reversed across semantic and structural study conditions. A DF effect was not found in the instructed group. These findings were interpreted as support for the hypothesis that retrieval disruption affects the use of contextual information normally associated with target information in memory (e.g., Kihlstrom & Evans, 1979).
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectDissertations, Academic.en_US
dc.subjectPsychology, Experimental.en_US
dc.titleDirected forgetting effects in explicit and implicit memory.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.contributor.chairKihlstrom, John F.en_US
dc.identifier.oclc717485985en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGarrett, Merrill F.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGlisky, Elizabeth L.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberForster, Kenneth I.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberVan Petten, Cymaen_US
dc.identifier.proquest9328561en_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-18T21:51:34Z
html.description.abstractA retrieval disruption construal of suppression during directed forgetting (DF) was examined. It was argued that it is often difficult to distinguish between retrieval disruption, response disruption, and differential rehearsal interpretations of DF effects. To circumvent the problem of response disruption, two types of tests--exclusive (i.e., interference) and implicit--were used. To circumvent the problem of differential rehearsal, incidentally studied items and a list segregation instruction were utilized. Intraserial cuing (i.e., cuing by item sets) was used in all four experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, the exclusive test was stem-cued recall and the implicit test was stem completion. In Experiment 1, unique stems (i.e., stems that did not share words across study lists) were used. A DF effect was found only in the exclusive test and only with intentionally studied items. It was argued that a methodological artifact obscured the DF effect in the incidentally studied items. In Experiment 2, repeated stems (i.e., stems that shared words across study lists) were used. The use of repeated stems allowed intrusion rates to be measured. A DF effect was again found only in the exclusive test, but this time in both intentionally and incidentally studied items. In Experiment 3, only a free recall exclusive test was used. A DF effect was found only in the intrusions. Again, it was possible that a methodological artifact obscured the DF effect in the exclusive test. In Experiment 4, Jacoby's (1991) exclusive recognition test was utilized. One half of the subjects was instructed to emphasize accuracy and the other half was not so instructed. A speed-accuracy tradeoff was observed such that the uninstructed group was faster, but displayed a relatively large number of "new"-old errors. In the uninstructed group, a DF effect was observed, but this effect was reversed across semantic and structural study conditions. A DF effect was not found in the instructed group. These findings were interpreted as support for the hypothesis that retrieval disruption affects the use of contextual information normally associated with target information in memory (e.g., Kihlstrom & Evans, 1979).


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_9328561_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
3.987Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
azu_td_9328561_sip1_m.pdf

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record