g., that retrieval-induced forgetting is cue independent, competition dependent, strength independent) apply if, and only if, a particular observation of retrieval-induced forgetting is primarily caused by inhibition. Thus, by increasing the role of blocking on the final test, the use of category-cued recall complicates inferences that can be made about why a given effect of retrieval-induced forgetting is observed. Although better motor response inhibition, as reflected by faster SSRTs, predicted lower amounts of retrieval-induced forgetting in the category-cued condition, it predicted greater retrieval-induced forgetting

in the category-plus-stem and item-recognition conditions. This finding provides clear support for response-override hypothesis of memory control (e.g., Anderson, 2005 and Levy and Anderson, 2002). According to this hypothesis, controlling memory retrieval is a special case of GSK2656157 mouse the broader need to override prepotent responses, a function thought to be achieved by the executive control processes of inhibition. Consistent with this view, the faster participants were able to stop motor responses in

the stop-signal motor inhibition Selleck PCI 32765 task, the more retrieval-induced forgetting they exhibited on tests likely to better isolate inhibition aftereffects. Whereas the stop-signal task requires participants to override a prepotent motor response, the retrieval-practice task requires them to override inappropriate traces in memory that interfere with the retrieval of a target item. Both tasks require contextually-inappropriate responses to be overridden,

a goal presumably accomplished by inhibitory control. The present results are difficult for purely competition-based accounts of retrieval-induced forgetting to explain. If retrieval-induced forgetting was simply the consequence of blocking at test then we would have expected individuals who showed more forgetting to exhibit slower SSRT scores, regardless of Farnesyltransferase the type of test used to measure retrieval-induced forgetting. The fact that such individuals exhibited faster SSRTs suggests that retrieval-induced forgetting can reflect the aftereffects of an active goal-directed inhibitory process, one that may play a more important role in the functioning of memory than has previously been assumed. Indeed, this finding fits well with other recent work exploring individual differences in retrieval-induced forgetting. For example, retrieval-induced forgetting is associated with greater working memory capacity (Aslan & Bäuml, 2011; but see Mall & Morey, 2013), the ability to overcome mental fixation in creative problem solving (Koppel and Storm, 2014 and Storm and Angello, 2010), and the ability to avoid unpleasant autobiographical memories (Storm & Jobe, 2012). Each of these findings suggests that individuals who exhibit greater levels of retrieval-induced forgetting enjoy advantages in memory and cognition—not disadvantages.