The Contextual Change Paradox Is Still Unresolved: Comment on Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)
According to the contextual change theory of memory loss, spontaneous forgetting reflects a retrieval impairment due to subtle and unprogrammed shifts in environmental cues over a retention interval. However, Riccio, Richardson, and Ebner (1984) noted an apparent paradox in this model; specifically,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychological bulletin 1999-03, Vol.125 (2), p.187-189 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 189 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 187 |
| container_title | Psychological bulletin |
| container_volume | 125 |
| creator | Riccio, David C Richardson, Rick Ebner, Debbie L |
| description | According to the contextual change theory of memory loss, spontaneous forgetting reflects a retrieval impairment due to subtle and unprogrammed shifts in environmental cues over a retention interval. However,
Riccio, Richardson, and Ebner (1984)
noted an apparent paradox in this model; specifically, laboratory studies inducing explicit shifts in contextual cues found less disruption of performance as retention intervals increased.
Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)
critiqued several of the claims made by Riccio et al. and concluded that the contextual cue theory is still a valid account of spontaneous forgetting. In this comment, the authors address the 3 major criticisms offered by Bouton et al., point out an inconsistency in their argument, and conclude that the original paradox still poses problems for the contextual change theory of forgetting. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.187 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69636618</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1791724074</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a450t-dfeefc0351ef340a76f9e02be59470751a5353fc7827d070c3538f438acd24573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90W9rFDEQBvAgij1PP4Egi6Kv3HMmk2w2L-XwT6GgYPs65LKz9kpu90x2S_vtzXFFtKivQuA3D8M8QjxHWCGQeQdAVEsLdoVSr-QKW_NALNCSrVFp_VAsfokT8STnKwAwuqHH4gQBWmNJLwSeX3K1HoeJb6bZx2p96YfvXH31yXfjTXWaq2_TNsbqYkicx3jN3VPxqPcx87O7dykuPn44X3-uz758Ol2_P6u90jDVXc_cByCN3JMCb5reMsgNa6tM2QO9Jk19MK00HRgI5df2ilofOqm0oaV4c8zdp_HHzHlyu20OHKMfeJyza2xDTYNtgS_vwatxTkPZzTWoiAhb-T8kgVSLWOhSvPoXQmPRSAXmoOioQhpzTty7fdrufLp1CO7QjDvc3R3u7kozTrrSTJl6cZc9b3bc_TZzrKKAt0fg997t823wadqGyDnMKfEwuc0c_8h7_Xd-z_0EzK-hGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614333182</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Contextual Change Paradox Is Still Unresolved: Comment on Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PsycARTICLES</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Riccio, David C ; Richardson, Rick ; Ebner, Debbie L</creator><contributor>Eisenberg, Nancy</contributor><creatorcontrib>Riccio, David C ; Richardson, Rick ; Ebner, Debbie L ; Eisenberg, Nancy</creatorcontrib><description>According to the contextual change theory of memory loss, spontaneous forgetting reflects a retrieval impairment due to subtle and unprogrammed shifts in environmental cues over a retention interval. However,
Riccio, Richardson, and Ebner (1984)
noted an apparent paradox in this model; specifically, laboratory studies inducing explicit shifts in contextual cues found less disruption of performance as retention intervals increased.
Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)
critiqued several of the claims made by Riccio et al. and concluded that the contextual cue theory is still a valid account of spontaneous forgetting. In this comment, the authors address the 3 major criticisms offered by Bouton et al., point out an inconsistency in their argument, and conclude that the original paradox still poses problems for the contextual change theory of forgetting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-2909</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.187</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10087935</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSBUAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Animals ; Associative Processes ; Contextual Associations ; Contextual Cues ; Cues ; Forgetting ; Humans ; Memory ; Memory - physiology ; Psychology ; Stimulus Generalization</subject><ispartof>Psychological bulletin, 1999-03, Vol.125 (2), p.187-189</ispartof><rights>1999 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Mar 1999</rights><rights>1999, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a450t-dfeefc0351ef340a76f9e02be59470751a5353fc7827d070c3538f438acd24573</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27869,27924,27925,30999</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10087935$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Eisenberg, Nancy</contributor><creatorcontrib>Riccio, David C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richardson, Rick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ebner, Debbie L</creatorcontrib><title>The Contextual Change Paradox Is Still Unresolved: Comment on Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)</title><title>Psychological bulletin</title><addtitle>Psychol Bull</addtitle><description>According to the contextual change theory of memory loss, spontaneous forgetting reflects a retrieval impairment due to subtle and unprogrammed shifts in environmental cues over a retention interval. However,
Riccio, Richardson, and Ebner (1984)
noted an apparent paradox in this model; specifically, laboratory studies inducing explicit shifts in contextual cues found less disruption of performance as retention intervals increased.
Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)
critiqued several of the claims made by Riccio et al. and concluded that the contextual cue theory is still a valid account of spontaneous forgetting. In this comment, the authors address the 3 major criticisms offered by Bouton et al., point out an inconsistency in their argument, and conclude that the original paradox still poses problems for the contextual change theory of forgetting.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Associative Processes</subject><subject>Contextual Associations</subject><subject>Contextual Cues</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Forgetting</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Memory - physiology</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Stimulus Generalization</subject><issn>0033-2909</issn><issn>1939-1455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp90W9rFDEQBvAgij1PP4Egi6Kv3HMmk2w2L-XwT6GgYPs65LKz9kpu90x2S_vtzXFFtKivQuA3D8M8QjxHWCGQeQdAVEsLdoVSr-QKW_NALNCSrVFp_VAsfokT8STnKwAwuqHH4gQBWmNJLwSeX3K1HoeJb6bZx2p96YfvXH31yXfjTXWaq2_TNsbqYkicx3jN3VPxqPcx87O7dykuPn44X3-uz758Ol2_P6u90jDVXc_cByCN3JMCb5reMsgNa6tM2QO9Jk19MK00HRgI5df2ilofOqm0oaV4c8zdp_HHzHlyu20OHKMfeJyza2xDTYNtgS_vwatxTkPZzTWoiAhb-T8kgVSLWOhSvPoXQmPRSAXmoOioQhpzTty7fdrufLp1CO7QjDvc3R3u7kozTrrSTJl6cZc9b3bc_TZzrKKAt0fg997t823wadqGyDnMKfEwuc0c_8h7_Xd-z_0EzK-hGA</recordid><startdate>19990301</startdate><enddate>19990301</enddate><creator>Riccio, David C</creator><creator>Richardson, Rick</creator><creator>Ebner, Debbie L</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><general>American Psychological Association, etc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FIXVA</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990301</creationdate><title>The Contextual Change Paradox Is Still Unresolved</title><author>Riccio, David C ; Richardson, Rick ; Ebner, Debbie L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a450t-dfeefc0351ef340a76f9e02be59470751a5353fc7827d070c3538f438acd24573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Associative Processes</topic><topic>Contextual Associations</topic><topic>Contextual Cues</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Forgetting</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Memory - physiology</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Stimulus Generalization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Riccio, David C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richardson, Rick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ebner, Debbie L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 03</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychological bulletin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Riccio, David C</au><au>Richardson, Rick</au><au>Ebner, Debbie L</au><au>Eisenberg, Nancy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Contextual Change Paradox Is Still Unresolved: Comment on Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)</atitle><jtitle>Psychological bulletin</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Bull</addtitle><date>1999-03-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>125</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>187</spage><epage>189</epage><pages>187-189</pages><issn>0033-2909</issn><eissn>1939-1455</eissn><coden>PSBUAI</coden><abstract>According to the contextual change theory of memory loss, spontaneous forgetting reflects a retrieval impairment due to subtle and unprogrammed shifts in environmental cues over a retention interval. However,
Riccio, Richardson, and Ebner (1984)
noted an apparent paradox in this model; specifically, laboratory studies inducing explicit shifts in contextual cues found less disruption of performance as retention intervals increased.
Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999)
critiqued several of the claims made by Riccio et al. and concluded that the contextual cue theory is still a valid account of spontaneous forgetting. In this comment, the authors address the 3 major criticisms offered by Bouton et al., point out an inconsistency in their argument, and conclude that the original paradox still poses problems for the contextual change theory of forgetting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>10087935</pmid><doi>10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.187</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0033-2909 |
| ispartof | Psychological bulletin, 1999-03, Vol.125 (2), p.187-189 |
| issn | 0033-2909 1939-1455 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69636618 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Animals Associative Processes Contextual Associations Contextual Cues Cues Forgetting Humans Memory Memory - physiology Psychology Stimulus Generalization |
| title | The Contextual Change Paradox Is Still Unresolved: Comment on Bouton, Nelson, and Rosas (1999) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T07%3A28%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Contextual%20Change%20Paradox%20Is%20Still%20Unresolved:%20Comment%20on%20Bouton,%20Nelson,%20and%20Rosas%20(1999)&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20bulletin&rft.au=Riccio,%20David%20C&rft.date=1999-03-01&rft.volume=125&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=187&rft.epage=189&rft.pages=187-189&rft.issn=0033-2909&rft.eissn=1939-1455&rft.coden=PSBUAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.187&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1791724074%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614333182&rft_id=info:pmid/10087935&rfr_iscdi=true |