explanations for forgetting☑️

explanations for forgetting:

interference theory

when two pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in forgetting one or both, or some distortion of memory

-linked mainly to forgetting in LTM as it likely means because we can’t get access to them though they’re available

types of interference

• proactive interference (PI)

• retroactive interference (RI)

proactive interference (PI)

older memory interferes with a newer one (eg teacher learnt so many names in the past, she has difficulty remembering names in her current class)

retroactive interference (RI)

newer memory interferes with an older one (teacher has learnt so much new names this year that she has trouble remembering names of last years students)

research on effect of similarity

-in both PI and RI, interference is worse when the memories are similar: mcgeoch and mcdonald (1932) altered similarity between two material sets; p’s learn list of 10 words until they could remember with 100% accuracy, then learnt a new list group:

1. synonyms

2. antonyms

3. words unrelated to the original ones

4. consonant syllables (YCG)

5. three digit numbers

6. no new list (control condition)

research on effects of similarity

findings, conclusions and explanations

-for initial list recall, the synonym group produced the worst recall, showing interference is strongest when memories are similar

-reasons: PI (previously stored information make new similar information more difficult to store) or RI (new information overwrites previous similar memories due to similarity)

explanations for forgetting: interference

evaluation: strengths

-evidence in everyday situations: baddeley and hitch (1977) asked rugby played to recall the name of a previous opponent team. the players all played the same time intervals across the season, and found players who played the most games (the most interference for memory) had the poorest recall showing interference occurs in real world scenarios, increasing validity of the theory

-evidence of retrograde facilitation; coenen and van luijtelaar (1997) gave p’s word lists and later asked for recall, assuming the interviewing process would act as interference. they found when word list was learned under the influence of diazepam, recall was particularly poorer than the placebo control gorup, but when word list was learnt before drug use, recall was better than the placebo group.

explanations for forgetting: interference

evaluation: limitations

-forgetting due to interference is unusual as conditions require the two things to be relatively similar, so forgetting may be explained better by other theories such as retrieval failure (due to lack of cues)

-interference is temporary, can be overcome using cues. endel tulving and joseph psotka (1971) gave p’s word lists categories, one list at a time. recall averaged about 70% for the first list but became progressively worse as participants learned additional lists (PI). at the end, p’s were given a cued recall test and told the names of the categories, where recall rose again to about 70% showing interference causes temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, which isn’t predicted by interference theory

explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

forgetting due to a lack of cues to aid remembrance

encoding specifity principle (ESP)

endel tulving (1983) reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered that a helpful cue has to be both present at coding (when we learn the material, like through mnemonic techniques) and present at retrieval, so if cues at encoding and retrieval are different, there’ll be some forgetting

retrieval failure due to absence of cues

content dependant forgetting

- context dependant forgetting: recall dependant on external cues (weathers or places)

procedure: godden and baddeley (1975) studied deep sea divers to see if training on land helped, or hindered their work underwater. the divers learnt a list of words either underwater or on land and then were asked to recall words either underwater it on land, creating four conditions:

• learn on land, recall on land

• learn on land, recall in water

• learn in water, recall on land

• learn in water, recall in water

findings and conclusions: accurate recall was 40% lower in the non matching conditions and concluded that the external cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall, which led to retrieval failure

retrieval failure due to absence of cues

state dependant forgetting

- state dependent forgetting: recall depends on internal cues (feelings)

procedure: carter and cassaday (1998) gave antihistamine drugs to p’s; mild sedative effect making them slightly drowsy, creating an internal physiological state different from their normal state. the p’s learnt word lists in four conditions

• learn on drug, recall on drug

• learn on drug, recall not on drug

• learn not on drug, recall on drug

• learn not on drug, recall not on drug

findings: where there was a mismatch, performance on recall was significantly worse, so when cues are absent there’s more forgetting

explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

evaluation: strengths

-retrieval cues can help overcome forgetting in everyday situations; forgetting what you’re looking for so going to the first room to remember, showing research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world

-range of research support; studies by godden+baddeley, carter+cassady and more. eysenck and keane (2010) argue retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM

wixted (2004) suggests the drug prevents new information from reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories so it can’t interfere with memories already stored; shows that forgetting can be due to interference so reducing the interference and you reduce the forgetting

explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

evaluation: limitations

-baddeley (1997) says retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting as land and water are polar opposites but learning in one room and recalling in another wouldmt have much effect as both environments and fairly similar

-context effects may depend substantially on type of memory being tested: godden and baddeley replicated their underwater memory test with recognition test instead of recall, where they found recognition was the same in all four conditions