explainations for forgetting

what are the two explainations for forgetting

1. interferance theory

2. cue dependant failure

what are the two types of interferance and their definitions

1. proactive interferance: when previous learning interferes with later learning

2. retroactive interferance: when leater learning disrupts earlier learning

research support for interferance theory: Schmidt et al

surveyed over 2,000 participants who had attended school in the same Dutch city. They were asked to recall the names of streets they had lived on or near during childhood. The researchers found that participants who had moved house more frequently or had learned more new street names over time were less able to recall the original street names. This supported the idea of retroactive interference, where new information (new addresses) interferes with the recall of older information (childhood addresses).

Conclusion: The study provided evidence that retroactive interference can affect real-life, autobiographical memory—although it still relied on self-report and recall, which may be influenced by individual differences

cue dependent failure

the reason why people forget information may be because of insufficient cues. When information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time.

Encoding specificity principle (ESP)

• Tulving researched into cue dependant forgetting /failure and found a pattern in what he called the ESP

• this states that if a cue is to help us recall info then it has to be present at encoding and at retreval

• if the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different there will be some forgetting

what are the 2 types of cue dependant forgetting

1. external cues: context dependant forgetting

2. Internal cues: state dependant forgetting

context dependant forgetting

Godden and Baddeley (1975) conducted a well-known study to investigate the effect of context-dependent forgetting.

Summary: They asked deep-sea divers to learn a list of words either on land or underwater, and then recall the words either in the same context or a different one. This created four conditions: learn on land/recall on land, learn underwater/recall underwater, learn on land/recall underwater, and learn underwater/recall on land.

The results showed that recall was significantly better when learning and recall took place in the same environment (i.e. context matched). When the context changed between learning and recall, performance dropped.

Conclusion: This study supports context-dependent forgetting—the idea that forgetting can occur when external cues present at learning are not available at recall.

State dependant forgetting

if we were to learn something when we feel happy/sad/drunk we could remember this information again when we are in the same mental state.

Carter and Cassaday (1998) investigated the effects of state-dependent forgetting, focusing on how internal states (like drug-induced drowsiness) affect memory.

Summary:
Participants learned word lists and passages of text either after taking anti-histamine drugs (which caused mild drowsiness) or while not under the influence of the drug. They were then tested on the material either in the same drug state or a different one, creating four conditions: learn on drug/test on drug, learn on drug/test off drug, learn off drug/test on drug, learn off drug/test off drug.

The results showed that recall was best when the internal state at learning matched the state at recall. When the state changed between learning and recall, performance dropped.

Conclusion:
This supports state-dependent forgetting, suggesting that internal cues (like physical or mental state) are important for memory retrieval.