![\"\"](\"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/files\/2014\/05\/Oliver-Burkeman-column-fo-007.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThere is a common misconception many people hold about memory, especially the memory of momentous events that have occurred during one\u2019s lifetime.\u00a0 Also known as flashbulb memories<\/i>, these memories seem to be unchanging and unforgettable.\u00a0 No matter how much time has passed, the details of such events remain extremely vivid and are assumed to be very accurate.\u00a0 Although as strong and accurate these memories may seem, flashbulb memories are susceptible to change.\u00a0 Without a person even realizing, the details a person recalls about a certain event can be altered based on experiences had post-event.<\/p>\n
So what\u2019s responsible for causing such change?\u00a0 A mechanism cognitive psychologists refer to as retroactive interference.\u00a0<\/i> As its name suggests, experiences had after<\/i> an event occurred can often interfere with the original memory that was stored.\u00a0 Let\u2019s consider the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, for example.\u00a0 For many members in the Colby community, this is a tragedy they will probably never forget.\u00a0 Characteristic to most flashbulb memories, it is likely for a person to remember where they were, at what time, who they were with, and how they felt at the moment of their learning about the bombings.\u00a0 However, in the time since one\u2019s initial storage of this memory, one can imagine the amount of media coverage and conversation that occurred around this event.\u00a0 Based on what we know about retroactive interference, it is likely that these factors interfered with one\u2019s original memory store and, subsequently, altered the way this person recalled their memory of this event.<\/p>\n
As this example demonstrates, our memory\u2019s susceptibility to change is often out of our control and can happen without us even realizing it.\u00a0 The question remains though– is there a way to control<\/i> what a person remembers and what a person forgets?\u00a0 In other words, other than the retroactive interference that occurs naturally after an event, is there a way for one to induce distortion of an individual\u2019s memory?\u00a0 In a series of slightly complicated experiments, researchers set out to explore this question.\u00a0 What they found was a phenomenon they referred to as socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting <\/i>(Coman, Manier, & Hirst, 2009).<\/p>\n
Specifically, researchers wondered whether two people who had two very different memories of the same event could, through conversation, forget details they held in their original memory based on the conversation had with another individual.\u00a0 To test this question, researchers gathered 20 native English speakers who lived in the NYC area on September 11, 2001.\u00a0 In a series of experiments, participants would answer questions about their personal experiences on this day, first by filling out answers on a questionnaire, followed by answering questions in a simple \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d recognition task.\u00a0 The recognition task was tailored to each participant based on their answers in the questionnaire.\u00a0 It consisted of a series of statements such as, \u201cI woke up at…\u201d\u00a0 The statement would end in either the actual response recorded in the individual\u2019s questionnaire, or a response that was gathered from a different person\u2019s questionnaire.\u00a0 Using a computer, participants would respond to the accuracy of each statement by simply hitting \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno.\u201d<\/p>\n
Following the recognition task was an interview between the experimenter and the participant in which the experimenter read questions from the questionnaire for the participant to respond.\u00a0 The experimenter recorded each response and would compare these responses to the participant\u2019s written responses before having done the recognition task.\u00a0 As the final part of the experiment, researchers had the participants pair up and share to each other their personal experiences of September 11.\u00a0 This conversation would happen in front of the experimenter, however there were no instructions given in what should be included in the conversation had.\u00a0 If the discussion was not flowing, the experimenter would stimulate discussion by giving the pair talking points such as \u201ctalk to each other about the early morning\u201d (630).\u00a0 Researchers would eventually transcribe the conversation and compare what each participant recalled to their responses in the questionnaire, recognition task, and interview.<\/p>\n
As hypothesized, researchers were able to demonstrate socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting among their participants.\u00a0 Their results concluded that, even when participants had completely different memories of an event, what the participant remembered was dependent upon what the speaker said.\u00a0 How were the researchers able to induce such forgetting?\u00a0 In thinking back to retroactive interference, researchers were able to control the interference that occurred by manipulating the questions asked in the recognition task and interview.\u00a0 By integrating the answers of other participant\u2019s experiences in the recognition task and omitting certain questions altogether, researchers were able to control what aspects of the participants memory would be accessible, and what aspects wouldn\u2019t.\u00a0 As demonstrated in the final conversation, the recollection of a participant\u2019s experience was different than what they first recalled in the written questionnaire (Coman, Manier, & Hirst, 2009).<\/p>\n
So back to that ex-boyfriend.\u00a0 Based on these results, we now know that through conversation and exchange with others about their own personal experience of a similar event, we can control what details of a memory will be remembered and what details may be eventually forgotten.\u00a0 So until new research discovers the forgetting the existence of an ex <\/i>phenomenon, one should engage in this type of exchange in order to forget certain details of their relationship, and to remember more positive ones.<\/p>\n