Evaluation of Interference theory and Retrieval failure theory

evaluate evidence for proactive interference

-evidence supports proactive interference theory

-underwood found when p's learned lists of words more errors were made when number of lists was increased compared to start of study

-shows older information (first word lists) interfere with the newer information (recent word lists)

-prove what proactive theory would predict

Evaluate evidence for retroactive interference

-research supports retroactive interference

-McGeoch and Mcdonald gave p's an og set of words to recall and then a second list varied in similarity to the og

-the similar the second list the harder og was to recall

-supports retroactive interference and provee what it would predict (the more similar the info the more interference it causes)

Evaluate ecological validity of interference theory

-research being conducted in a lab is a weakness

-artificial setting so lacks the context of real-life memory use e.g. very unlikely to need to recall unrelated lists of words irl

-lab findings don't tell about real life use of memory

-so lacks ecological validity

evaluate field studies conducted on retrieval theory

-some field studies support the theory

-Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played over the season

-recall wasn't affected by time passed but how many other teams they played in intervening time so player with the least intervening matches would be better able to recall names of team members

-shows retrospective interference irl setting so supports role of interference over just pass of time as a cause for forgetting

evaluate evidence for context dependent forgetting

-supporting evidence

-Godden and Baddeley studied deep water divers and context dependent memory

-p's had to learn lists of 36 words either or land or underwater

-accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions

-land (same) 37% (different) 24%

-underwater (same) 32% (different) 23%

-recall better when learning environments matched recall environments

-supports prediction of theory

evaluate evidence supporting state dependent forgetting

-supporting evidence

-Carter and Cassaday gave antihistamine drugs or placebo to p's (drugs had mild side effects of causing drowsiness so altering state of awareness) who were asked to recall info in 4 diff conditions

-decrease in accuracy of recall when p's internal state didn't match at time of encoding and retrieval

-supports the theory

evaluate generalisability of studies for retrieval theory

-Baddeley argued studies don't reflect rl so strength of explanations should be questioned

-claimed that in study context has to be very different to have an effect irl context has only subtle changes so irl affect isn't as strong as the affect in studies

-ecological validity of claims is low

Evaluate applications of retrieval theory

-has useful applications

-e.g for soldiers useful scenario based strategies can be devised to give people information in locations

-this can be applied to astronauts, medics etc

-also applied to people giving accurate eyewitness accounts of crimes by helping them register scene

-can help save lives of people in threatning situations

evaluate validity of supporting evidence of retrieval failure theory

high validity of explanation

there are different lab based scenarios and cues

high internal validity as there is high control over variable/lab settings

however lacks ecological validity as it doesn't represent irl situations

Not studied (9)

You haven't studied these terms yet.