explanations for forgetting☑️

explanations for forgetting:

interference theory

-occurs when two pieces of information disrupt eachother, 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)

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

retroactive interference (RI)

-happens when a 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, suggested by john mcgeoch and william mcdonald (1932)

procedure: changing 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

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

-reasons that similarity affects recall: PI (previously stored information make new similar information more difficult to store) or RI (new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity)

explanations for forgetting: interference

evaluation: strengths

-evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations: alan baddeley and graham 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

counterpoint: forgetting due to interference theory is quite unusual as conditions require the two things to be relatively similar, meaning forgetting may be explained better by other theories such as retrieval failure due to lack of cues

-evidence of retrogade facilitation; anton coenen and gilles van luijtelaar (1997) gave participants word lists and later asked for recall, assuming the interviewing process would act as interference. they found that when word lost 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

-interference is temporary and can be overcome using cues. endel tulving and joseph psotka (1971) gave participants word lists organised into categories, one list of a time. recall averaged about 70% for the first list but became progressively worse as participants learned addition lists (PI). at the end, the participants 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

-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: duncan godden and alan baddeley (1975) studied deep sea dives 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 and this led to retrieval failure

retrieval failure due to absence of cues

state dependant forgetting

- state dependent forgetting: recall depends on internal cues (feeling upset or being drunk)

procedure: sara carter and helen cassaday (1998) gave antihistamine drugs to their participants, which had a mild sedative effect making the participants slightly drowsy, creating an internal physiological state different from their normal state. the participants had to learn word lists in four different stages

• 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

-impressive range of research supporting retrieval failure theory; studies by godden, baddeley, carter and cassady and many more. micheal eysenck and mark keane (2010) argue retrieval failure is perhaps main reason for forgetting from LTM

counterpoint: baddeley (1997) says retrieval failure due t 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 would have much effect as both environments and fairly similar

john 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

-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 recall was the same in all four conditions