Explanations for forgetting - PEC

2 strengths of explanations for forgetting

Research supports interfernce

Reserach supports retrival failure

Strength of explanation for forgetting- Research support for interference

P: Research support for interference

E: One of most consistently demonstrated concepts in psychology with studies showing it is a common way to forget

C: Lab experiments control effects of extraneous variables so gives confidence that interference is valid

Strength of explanation for forgetting - Research for retrieval failure

P: Range of research for retrieval failure

E: Godden + Baddleley (1975) and Carter + Cassidy (1998)

C: Supporting evidence increases validity

2 studies for retrieval failure

Godden + Baddeley (1975)

Carter + Cassaday (1998)

Study for interference

McGeoch + Mcdonald (1931)

2 limitations of explanation for forgetting

Interference more likely in lab situations

Context effect related to type of memory being tested

Limitation of explanation for forgetting - Interference more likely in lab experiments

P: Interference more likely in lab experiments than real life

E: Learning word lists more realistic than nonsense syllables shown in other studies but still far from what people remember in everyday life

C: Artificial tasks makes interference more likely and not reflective of everyday life

Limitation of explanation for forgetting - Context effect may be related to type of memory being tested

P: Context effect may be related to type of memory tested

E: Godden + Baddeley replicated their test using recognition test instead of recall and had no context effects

C: Presence or absence of cues only effects memory when you test it in a specific way

2 issues and debates of explanation for forgetting

Uses nomothetic approach

Baddeley + Godden has beta bias

What approach does the explanation for forgetting take?

Nomothetic