Kihlstrom J F
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1983 Mar;112(1):73-9. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.112.1.73.
In a commentary on an article by Geiselman, Bjork, and Fishman (1983), directed forgetting observed in the normal waking state is compared with amnesia as induced by hypnotic suggestion. The two paradigms typically differ with respect to the role of incidental or intentional learning, the amount of study devoted to the items, the temporal location of the cue to forget, the retention interval involved, and the measure of memory that is of interest. Depending on the directed-forgetting paradigm used, they also differ with respect to the actual inaccessibility of the to-be-forgotten items, the reversibility of the forgetting, and the extent of interference of the items targeted by the forget cue on other items. However, these comparisons are vitiated somewhat by the methodological differences between the two paradigms. Theoretically, the three mechanisms typically used to account for directed forgetting--selective rehearsal, list segregation, and selective search--do not appear to account for the amnesia observed in hypnosis. However, the two phenomena do appear to share a fourth mechanism, retrieval inhibition. Final acceptance of this conclusion, however, awaits comparison of the two types of instructed forgetting within a common experimental paradigm.
在对盖斯尔曼、比约克和菲什曼（1983年）一篇文章的评论中，将正常清醒状态下观察到的定向遗忘与催眠暗示诱发的失忆进行了比较。这两种范式在附带或有意学习的作用、用于项目的学习量、遗忘线索的时间位置、所涉及的保持间隔以及感兴趣的记忆测量方法等方面通常存在差异。根据所使用的定向遗忘范式，它们在待遗忘项目的实际不可达性、遗忘的可逆性以及遗忘线索所针对的项目对其他项目的干扰程度方面也存在差异。然而，这两种范式之间的方法学差异在一定程度上削弱了这些比较。从理论上讲，通常用于解释定向遗忘的三种机制——选择性复述、列表分离和选择性搜索——似乎无法解释在催眠中观察到的失忆现象。然而，这两种现象似乎确实共享第四种机制，即检索抑制。不过，要最终接受这一结论，还需在共同的实验范式内对这两种类型的指令性遗忘进行比较。
