explanations for forgetting (LTM)

what are the 2 explanations for forgetting

interference

retrieval failure

INTERFERENCE:

• Assume LTM is permanent store so when u forget something in LTM, likely that u cant access information but it still available

• Interference makes it hard to locate memories → ‘ forgetting’

RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF SIMILARITY

McGeoch and Mcdonald

In both proactive and retroactive interference, interference is worse when memories or learning are similar

Procedure

-Studied retroactive interference by changing the amount if similarity between 2 sets of material

-Participants had to learn list of 10 words until they reached 100% accuracy

they then learnt a new list → 6 groups of participants who had to learn diff types of new list

Group 1 → synonyms to words in original list (same meaning)

Group 2 → antonyms to words in original list (opposite meaning)

Group 3 → words unrelated to words in original list

Group 4 → consonant syllables

Group 5 → 3-digit numbers

Group 6 → no new list (control condition)

Findings

when participants asked to recall original list of words, recall was worse when words in new list synonyms (similar materials)

Conclusions

Interference strongest when memories similar

STRENGTHS

Evidence of interference effects in everyday situations

• Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

  
  

  → Asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played against during a rugby season

  → The players all played for same time interval (over one season) but number of intervening games varied bc some players missed matches due to injury

  → Players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had poorest recall

  → This study shows interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory

Counterpoint

• Interference causing forgetting in everyday situations rare bc conditions needed for interference to occur are relatively rare unlike lab studies

  
  

  (high levels of control → researcher can create ideal conditions for interference)

  
  

• As McGeoch and Mcdonald concluded, memories have to be similar to interfere w each other

  
  

  → May happen occasionally in everyday life but not often whereas in lab, learning and recall are controlled

  → Also in real word, other variables can effect learning and recall but in lab, variables controlled

  → lab produce conditions for interference to occur which may be rare in real word, lowering validity of theory

  
  

• may be better explained by other theories eg retrieval failure due to lack of cues

  
  

Support from drug studies

• Anton Coenen and Gilles van Luijtelaar

  
  

  →gave participants list of words + later asked recall it (assuming the intervening events would act as interterence)

  
  

  →found that when a list of words was learned under influence of the drug diazepam, recall one week later was poorer compared to placebo control group

  → But when list was learned before drug taken, recall better than placebo control group.

  → So drug improved recall of material learned beforehand

  
  

  →Wixted suggested the drug prevents new info (experienced after taking drug) reaching parts of brain involved in processing memories so it cannot interfere retroactively with info alr stored

  
  

  
  

  → Findings show forgetting can be due to interterence - reduce interference, reduce forgetting

WEAKNESS

Interference temporary + can be overcome using cues

• Tulving and and Psotka

  
  

  → gave participants list of words organised into categories

  
  

  → recall around 70% for first list but became progressivley worse as participants learned more lists (proactive interference)

  → at the end, participants given cued recall test and told names of categories

  → recall rose around 70% again

  
  

  → shows interference causes temporary loss of access to info still in LTM rather than forgetting

RETRIEVAL FAILURE :

reason ppl forget may be bc insufficient cues

when create a memory, associated cues stored with it

if cues not available at time of recall, may seem like u forgotten info but acc due to retrieval failure so cant access memories

encoding specificity principle (tulving 1983)

tulving looked into reterival failure and noticed a pattern

he summarised this as the encoding specicity principle

this states that in order for a cue (trigger) to help us remeber something, ithas to be there at the encoding stage and the reterival stage

if the cues are different, there will be some forgetting

some cues r meaningful to the material to be remebered

some cues r not meaningful

→ context dependant forgetting → setting

→ state dependant forgetting → physical state

conext- dependant forgetting

→ godden and baddeley

4 conditions

deep sea divers learned word lists and were later asked to recall them

condition 1 → learn on land, recall on land

condtion 2 → learn on land, recall underwater

condition 3 → learn underwater, recall on land

condition 4 -. learn underwater, recall underwater

accurate recall was 40% lower in conditions 2 and 3 in comparison to the matched ones

reterival failure was due to the absence of encoded context cues at the time of recall→ the material was not accessible

state depndant forgetting

carter and cassaday

four conditions

partipcnats learned a list of words/prose and later recalled them

condition 1 → learn when on drugs, recall when on drug

condition 2 → learn on drug, recall when not on drug

condition 3 → learn when not on drug, recall on drug

condition 4 → learn when not on drug, recall when not on drug

recall was significantly worse in conditions 2 and 3

when the cues at encoding are absent at reterival then there is more forgetting

strengths → real world application

we can apply the encoding specificity principle to real world situations

in some cases, when we forget something, we might have to try and remeber where we firsy learnt it

shows us how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall

strengths → research support

2 supporting studied

and further supported by eysenck who argues reterival faiure is main reason we forget

counterpoint → te extent to which we can apply it is quite limited

eg classrooms r all quite similar so it would be hard to ink the encoding specifity principle to this scenario

so maybe it doesnt have as much application to the real world as we may have thought

limitations → recall vs recognition

it has been argued that the context might depend on the type of memory being tested

godden and abddley replicated their underwatwer study

they did a recognition task instead f a recall task

partyicpats had to see if they recognisised a word read off a lisy. instead of reterieving it themselves

it was found that the performance of all of the groups were the same regardless of whether they were in the same context

what is interference theory

an explanation of forgetting that occurs when 2 pieces of info disrupt each other, causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten

What are the 2 types of interference

• proactive interference

• retroactive interference

what is proactive interference

forgetting occurs when an older memory interferes with a newer memory

old info alr stored interferes w recalling smn new

eg teacher has to learn so many names that she forgets names of current class

what is retroactive interference

forgetting occurs when new memory interferes with older memory

new info being stored interferes w recall of old info

eg teacher has learnt so many names that she forgets names of past class

what 2 things makes interference more likely

similarity → interference is more likely to occur when the 2 pieces of info r similar → due to response competition

time sensitivity → interference more likely to occur when there’s a small time difference between when u first learn both sets of information

→interference less likely to occur when there’s a large time difference between when u first learn both sets of information

Who researched the effects of similarity on interference

McGeoch and McDonald

procedure McGeoch and McDonald

Studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material

• Participants learn list of 10 words until reached 100% accuracy

• Then learnt new list → 6 groups of participants who had to learn diff types of new list

Group 1 → synonyms to words in original list (same meaning)

Group 2 → antonyms to words in original list (opposite meaning)

Group 3 → words unrelated to words in original list

Group 4 → consonant syllables

Group 5 → 3-digit numbers

Group 6 → no new list (control condition)

Findings

Findings and Conclusion of McGeoch and Mcdonald

Findings :

when participants asked to recall original list of words, recall worse when words in new list synonyms (similar materials)

Conclusions :

Interference strongest when memories or learning similar

What are the explanations of the effects of similarity

Could be due to proactive interference (previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store

Or could be due to retroactive interference (new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity)

Strength for explanations for forgetting : INTERFERENCE

• Evidence of interference effects in everyday situations

  • Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

    
    

    → Asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played against during a rugby season

    → The players all played for same time interval (over one season) but number of intervening games varied bc some players missed matches

    → Players who played the most games (most interference for memory) = poorest recall

    → This study shows interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory

  
  

  
  

  Counterpoint

  • Interference causing forgetting in everyday situations rare bc conditions needed for interference to occur are relatively rare unlike lab studies

    (high levels of control → researcher can create ideal conditions for interference)

    
    

  • As McGeoch and Mcdonald concluded, memories have to be similar to interfere w each other

    
    

    → May happen occasionally in everyday life but not often whereas in lab, learning and recall are controlled

    → Also in real word, other variables can effect learning and recall but in lab, variables controlled

    → lab produce conditions for interference to occur which may be rare in real word, lowering validity of theory

    
    

  • may be better explained by other theories eg retrieval failure due to lack of cues

    
    

  
  

  
  

another Strength for explanations for forgetting : INTERFERENCE

STRENGTHS

Support from drug studies

• Anton Coenen and Gilles van Luijtelaar

  
  

  →gave participants list of words + later asked recall it (assuming the intervening events would act as interterence)

  
  

  →found that when a list of words was learned under influence of the drug diazepam, recall one week later was poorer compared to placebo control group

  → But when list was learned before drug taken, recall better than placebo control group.

  → So drug improved recall of material learned beforehand

  
  

  →Wixted suggested the drug prevents new info (experienced after taking drug) reaching parts of brain involved in processing memories so it cannot interfere retroactively with info alr stored

  
  

  
  

  → Findings show forgetting can be due to interterence - reduce interference, reduce forgetting

Weakness for explanations for forgetting : INTERFERENCE

• Interference temporary + can be overcome using cues

  • Tulving and and Psotka

    
    

    → gave participants list of words organised into categories

    
    

    → recall around 70% for first list but became progressivley worse as participants learned more lists (proactive interference)

    → at the end, participants given cued recall test and told names of categories

    → recall rose around 70% again

    
    

    → shows interference causes temporary loss of access to info still in LTM rather than forgetting

  
  

retrieval failure

form of forgetting occurring when cues not available at time of recall so cant access memory.

memory available but not accessible unless suitable cue provided

what is a cue

a ‘trigger’ of info that allows us to access a memory

may be meaningful or indirectly linked by being encoded at same time of learning

indirect cues may be external ( weather/place) or internal (mood/ degree of drunkenness)

In context dependent forgetting → recall depends on external cue eg weather/place

In state dependant forgetting → recall dependant on internal cue eg mood/ degree of drunkenness

who proposed encoding specificity principle

Tulving

what is encoding specificity principle

if a cue is going to be helpful, it has to be present at encoding (when we learn info) and present at retrieval (when we recall info)

if cues at encoding and recall are different or absent, there will be forgetting

info still in LTM but cant access it

Some cues linked to the material in meaningful way e.g mnemonics

Other cues unmeaningful but encoded at time of learning e.g context-dependent forgetting (recall depends on external cue eg weather/place) and state-dependent forgetting (recall dependant on internal cue eg mood/ degree of drunkenness)

who did research on context-dependant forgetting

Godden and Baddeley

procedure of Godden and Baddeley study

divers learned list of world other underwater or on land then asked to recall words either underwater or on land

4 conditions

4 conditions in Godden and Baddeley study

• learn on land, recall on land

• learn underwater, recall underwater

• learn on land ,recall underwater

• learn underwater, recall on land

findings and conclusions of Godden and Baddleys study

Findings

accurate recall 40% lower in non-matching condition

Conclusion

concluded external cues present when learning different from external cues present at recall, leading to retrieval failure

who did research on state dependant forgetting

Carter and Cassaday

procedure Carter and Cassaday study

gave antihistamine drugs to participants → makes participants feel drowsy

created different internal physiological state different from normal state of being alert

participants learned list of words and passages of prose then recall info

4 conditions

what were the 4 conditions in Carter and Cassaday

learn on drug, recall on drug

learn not on drug, recall not on drug

learn on drug, recall not on drug

learn not on drug, recall on drug

Findings and conditions of Carter and Cassaday study

Findings

in non-matching conditions of internal state at learning and recall, performance on memory test worse

Conclusion

so when cues absent (eg drowsy when recalling info but alert learning it) → more forgetting

Strengths of retrieval failure

Real-world application

retrieval cues can help overcome some forgetting in everyday situations.

Although cues may not have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddeley suggests they are still worth paying attention to. For instance, we have probably all had the experience of being in one room and thinking I must go and get such-and-such item from another room. You go to the other room only to forget what it was you wanted. But the moment you go back to the first room, you remember again. When we have trouble remembering something, it is probably worth making the effort to recall the environment in which you learned it first.

This shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall

strengths

Research support

strength → range of research that supports retrieval failure explanation.

Studies by Godden and Baddeley + Carter and Cassaday show lack of relevant cues at recall lead to context-dependent forgetting and state-dependent forgetting

(procedure + results one of studies)

studies shows retreval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as in a labs highly controlled conditions

Counterpoint

Baddeley argued context effects are not strong in everyday life. Different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen. For example, it would be hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater (Godden and Baddeley) In contrast, leaming something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because these environments are generally not different enough.

This means that retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting

weakness

Recall versus recognition

One limitation is that context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested

Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall - participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from a list, instead of retrieving it for themselves. When recognition was tested there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all four conditions.

This suggests that retrieval failure Is a limited explanation for forgetting. because it only applies when a person has to recall information rather than recognise

weakness

Problems with the ESP

There is a lot of evidence that forgetting takes place when there is a mismatch (or absence) of encoding and retrieval cues (Tulving's encoding specificity principle).

However, is it possible to independently establish whether a cue has been encoded or not? The reasoning is circular and based on assumptions. In an experiment, if a cue did not produce recall we assume it cannot have been encoded. If the cue did produce recall, we assume it must have been encoded.