In self-cued directed forgetting, selected words were better recalled than unselected words regardless of whether they were designated to-be-remembered or to-be-forgotten¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Selection interacted with cue: more to-be-remembered words were recalled when selected (d = 0.56) and more to-be-forgotten words were recalled when selected (d = 0.74). → Dillon H. Murphy 2023

Evidence¶

Dillon H. Murphy 2023¶

Dillon H. Murphy, Vered Halamish, Matthew G. Rhodes, & Alan D. Castel. (2023). How evaluating memorability can lead to Unintended Consequences. Metacognition and Learning (2023) 18:375–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09332-3

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Experiment 5 with 124 undergraduates circling 10 of 20 words either to be tested on or not to be tested on, then recalling all words. The selection-by-cue interaction "[F(1, 122) = 28.47, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.19]" showed selecting words benefits memory even when selecting information to forget.

"those words that were selected interacted with the coded cue [F(1, 122) = 28.47, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.19] such that more to-be-remembered words were recalled when they were selected [ pholm = 0.002, d = 0.56] and more to-be-forgotten words were recalled when they were selected [pholm < 0.001, d = 0.74]"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• When every word was judged, words circled as to-be-remembered were recalled better and words underlined as to-be-forgotten worse than a no-instruction control group's recall — related
• Judging words as likely to be forgotten enhanced their recall relative to unselected words under simultaneous presentation with fixed or self-paced study time — related
• Relative to random choice, a metacognitive judgment of remembering boosted recall while a judgment of forgetting was associated with a memory cost — related
• Words participants said they would remember were recalled earlier in output than words predicted to be forgotten or words not given a prediction — related
• When the number of remember, forget, and unselected words was equated, words predicted to be forgotten were recalled similarly to unselected words — reports the opposite
• Under sequential presentation with Likert ratings for every word, no memory benefit emerged for items judged likely to be forgotten; negative ratings predicted the poorest recall — reports the opposite
• Merely selecting words by clicking on them, without any memorability instructions, enhanced their recall (a choice effect) — related