explanations for forgetting

interference meaning

• as new info is learnt, cognitive connections can get confused, especially with two similar memories

• similar memories creates “response competition” during recall which can distort memories and lead to forgetting

• interference is more likely when memories are similar (e.g. two lists, similar subjects), showing that forgetting is due to competition between memories rather than decay

two types of interference

• proactive

• retroactive

proactive

• when older/previous memories interfere with newer/recent memories

• what you already know interferes with new material leading to forgetfulness

retroactive

• when newer/recent memories interfere with previous/older memories

• new correct learning interferes with existing memory

• new information overwrites earlier information

schmidt et al 2000

aim: test retroactive interference

procedure: 211 ppts given a map of Molenberg, Netherlands without street names , told to recall as many as they could and asked about their moving date

results: positive correlation between no. of times a ppt has moved and no. of street names forgotten

conclusion: frequent new learning (new street layouts) causes retroactive interference of older spatial memories

interference strengths

• practical applications eg. teachers spacing out revision

• research support eg. schmidt et al

• high ecological validity, practical applications (e.g. moving house, learning similar subjects)

• laboratory studies demonstrate cause-and-effect, increasing internal validity

interference weaknesses

• mechanically reductionist, doesn’t include emotional influences of forgetting

• partial explanation, tasks like remembering appointment times aren’t mentioned

• artificial tasks (e.g. word lists), lowering ecological validity

• limited explanatory power as it cannot explain forgetting when there is no similar material to interfere

retrieval failure due to absence of cues

• forgetting arises due to an absence of cues that were present during encoding, but not during recall

• memory is available but not accessible, showing retrieval failure rather than storage failure

assumptions for absence of cues

• a memory trace is laid down and retained in a memory store as a result of the original perception of an event, complete with its surroundings eg. smell, sound, emotions, that acts as a retrieval cue

• a retrieval cue is a piece of info in the individual’s cognitive environment at the time of encoding that matched the time of recall

tulvings encoding specificity principle

• the greater the dissimilarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of forgetting an original memory

• If the cues or information present when you learned something don’t match the cues at the time you try to remember it, your brain has trouble accessing the memory in long-term memory (LTM)

• central theoretical principle explaining context-dependent and state-dependent forgetting

3 types of cues

absence of…

• context cues

• state cues

• organisational cues

context cues

external cues from the environment where learning takes place eg. smell, room, weather, location

state cues

when the mood or physiological state during recall is different from the mood you were in when learning, internal cues eg. stress, sober, tired. includes state-dependent and mood-dependent memory

state cues research

overton 1972

ppts learn material when either drunk or sober, recall was poorer when in a different internal state

empirical support for state-dependent forgetting

however, lacks ecological validity as intoxication is not representative of everyday learning

organisational cues

memory is triggered based on structure/meaning/organisation of information. logically organised = higher recall

absence of cues strengths

• research support eg. overton 1972

• practical evaluations eg. education

weaknesses absence of cues

• mechanically reductionist

• context effects may be overstated; Baddeley (1997) argued they are weak in everyday environments, reducing ecological validity

• individual differences eg. personality, attention, anxiety