Case Studies for Explanations for Forgetting

McGeoch and McDonald (1931)

Effects of similarity on interference

McGeoch and McDonald’s procedure

Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them. Learnt a new list. 6 groups of participants had to learn different types of new lists. Group 1 - synonyms, group 2 - antonyms, group 3 - words unrelated to the original, group 4 - constant syllables, group 5 - 3 digit numbers, group 6 - no new list, control condition

McGeoch and McDonald’s findings

When asked to recall the original list of words, the synonyms produced the worst recall. Shows interference is strongest when memories are similar

Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

Wanted to find out if retroactive interference was a better explanation for forgetting

Baddeley and Hitch’s procedure

Asked rugby players to try remember the names of teams they had played so far in the season. Some players missed matches due to injury

Baddeley and Hitch’s results

Players who played the most games had the poorest recall compared to the injured players

Tulving and Psoka

Proactive interference. Used as evidence of a limitation of the interference theory

Tulving and Psoka’s procedure

Gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time. Not told what the categories were. Had to recall the words from each list

Tulving and Psoka - what occurred at the end of the procedure?

Were given a cued recall test, were told the names of the categories. Recall rose to 70% again

Tulving and Psoka’s results

Average of 70% for the first list, became worse as the participants learned each additional list.

Godden and Baddeley (1975)

Context-dependent forgetting

Godden and Baddeley’s procedure

Studied deep-sea divers who work underwater to see if training on land helped or hindered their work. The divers learned a list of words underwater or on land, had to recall them underwater or on land. Learn on land = recall on land, learn on land = recall underwater, learn underwater = recall on land, learn underwater = recall underwater

Godden and Baddeley’s findings and conclusions

In two conditions, the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, the others didn’t. Accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions. External cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall, led to retrieval failure

Carter and Cassaday (1998)

State-dependent forgetting

Carter and Cassaday’s procedure

Gave antihistamine drugs to their participants. Had a mild sedative effect, made the participants slightly drowsy. Participants had to learn lists of words and passages of prose, then recall the info. Learn on drug = recall on drug, learn on drug - recall when not on drug, learn not on drug = recall on drug, learn not on drug = recall when not on drug

Carter and Cassaday’s findings

The conditions with mismatch internal state at learning and recall, performance was slightly worse. When cues are absent, there is more forgetting