1/11
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
|---|
No study sessions yet.
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
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