Forgetting

Forgetting:

Gone – availability.

Can't find – accessibility.

Interference:

One memory disturbs the ability to recall another. This might result in forgetting or distorting one or the other or both. This is more likely to happen if the memories are similar.

Proactive interference:

Example:

Previously learnt information interferes with the new information you are trying to store.

I.e. When you get a new mobile number your memory of your old number will disrupt your attempts at remembering the new one. Teacher recalling names of last year's students when trying to remember this year's class names.

Retroactive interference:

Example:

A new memory interferes with older ones.

I.e. You may have difficulty remembering a previous password after setting up a new one or you have difficulties remembering the names of the students in your class last year because you learnt the names of your new students.

Two types of cue dependent forgetting:

Context:

State:

Two types of cues:

Context and state

When the environment during recall is different during learning e.g. study in one room take test in another.

Mood or psychological state during recall is different during learning e.g. learn something under influence of drugs or alcohol, recall of information whist sober may cause state-dependent forgetting.

This theory explains forgetting in the LTM as a retrieval failure: the information is stored in the LTM but cannot be accessed. Forgetting according to the theory is due to lack of cues.

Cues which are liked meaningfully to the information to be remembered.

Cues which are not linked meaningfully to the information to be remembered

This theory proposed that when we learn the information we also encode the context (external cues) in which we learn the information we also encode the context (external cues) in which we learn the information and the mental state we are in (internal cues). These can act as cues to recall.

Experiments:

Underwood & Postman – retroactive interference:

Aim:

Procedure:

Results:

Conclusion:

To find out if new learning interferes with previous learning.

P’s were divided into two groups. Group A were asked to learn a list of word pairs (cat-tree) they were then asked to learn a second list of word pairs where the second paired word was different (cat-glass).

Group B were asked to learn the first list of word pairs only. Both groups were asked to recall the first list of word pairs.

Group B recalled the first list was more accurate than the recall of Group A.

This suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with P’s ability to recall the list. This is an example of retroactive interference.

Keppel & Underwood – Proactive interference:

Evaluation:

They asked P’s to recall consonant trigrams (THG) after varying intervals (3,6,9 secs) during which they counted backwards in 3s (prevents rehearsal).

They found that while forgetting was found to increase with the interval there was little or no forgetting of trigrams from the start of the procedure (remembered trigrams presented first, irrespective of interval length).

These results can be explained in terms of proactive interference. The earlier memory of the consonants had entered the long-term memory and was interfering with the memory of the later consonants due to similarity of info presented.

Most of the evidence supporting this theory comes from lab studies i.e. underwood and postman. This is a strength as the extraneous variables (a factor that can affect the outcome of a study but is not being investigated e.g. individual difference in P’s) can be controlled and these experiments can be replicated so reliability can be tested. However, they use artificial materials (i.e. word lists) which are meaningless to the P’s so they do not represent everyday situations when we must remember things which have meaning to us i.e. a shopping list. However, there is support for the influence of interference in everyday life (Baddeley & Hitch).

The P’s do not have the same motivation to remember the stimuli used in an experiment than they have to remember things which are important to their lives i.e. remembering studies for an exam so the recall of the P’s might be less accurate and make the effects of interference appear stronger than they really are.

Baddeley states that the tasks given to P’s are too close to each other and, in real life, these kinds of events are more spaced out so the effect might be different.

Tulving – Retrieval failure forgetting:

Encoding Specificity principle:

This is when we cannot access the memory (stored in LTM) until the correct retrieval cue is used. The memory/information is accessible just not available.

When we encode a new memory, we also store information that occurred around it such as the way we felt or the place we were in. If we cannot remember or recall it, it could be because we are not in a similar situation to when the memory was originally stored.

When we come into the same situation again, retrieval cues can trigger the memory of the situation.

The greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory. (More likely to recall info if in the same context as learning it).

Godden and Baddeley – Context dependent forgetting:

Aim:

Procedure:

Conclusion:

Evaluation:

Cons:

Pros:

Investigated the effect of environment on recall. This study took place in Scotland.

18 divers from a diving club were asked to learn lists of 36 unrelated words of two or three syllables.

4 Conditions:

Learn on beach – recall on beach.

Learn on beach – Recall under water.

Learn under water – recall on beach

Learn underwater – recall underwater.

The results show that the context acted as a cue to recall as the P’s recalled more words when they learnt and recalled the words in the same environment than when they learnt and recalled the words in different environments.

Limited ecological validity – Because the environment was familiar to the divers, but the test was artificial (learning/ recalling words under water is an unrealistic task.

Findings cannot be generalized to all cased of context cues as only divers were used.

Another weakness is that the groups who learnt and recalled in different environments were interrupted (they had to change environments) whereas the groups who learnt and recalled in the same environment were not disrupted. This could have influenced their recall e.g. time to rehearse or greater interference.

However, it was a controlled experiment so it can be replicated so reliability can be tested.

Abernathy found that students performed better in tests if the tests took place in the same room as the learning of the material had taken place.

The studies do not consider the meaning of the material and the level of motivation of the person when learning the information.

Real life application – This is used as a strategy to improve recall in eye-witness memory when the witnesses are asked to describe the context in which the incident they have witnessed took place during cognitive interviews.

This theory is difficult to disprove – if recall does not occur is it because the information is not stored or because you are not providing the right cue? (circular argument)

Results – Context dependent forgetting:
	Learn on beach	Learn underwater
Recall on beach	13.5	8.5
Recall underwater	8.6	11.4

Goodwin et al – state dependent forgetting:

Results:

Conclusion:

Evaluation:

Forty-eight male medical students participated on day 1 in a training session and on day 2 in a testing. They were randomly assigned to four groups.

SS – Was sober on both days.

AA – Was intoxicated both days.

AS – Was intoxicated on day 1 and sober on day 2.

SA – Was sober on day 1 and intoxicated on day 2.

The intoxicated groups had 111 mg/100ml alcohol in their blood. They all showed signs of intoxication. The P’s had to perform 4 tests: an avoidance task, a verbal rote-learning test, a word association test and a picture recognition task.

More errors were made on day 2 in the AS and SA condition than the AA or SS conditions however this was not the case for the picture recognition test. The SS P’s performed best in all tasks.

This supports the state dependent memory theory as the performance was best in P’s who were sober or intoxicated on both days.

Limited ecological validity because the task performed by the P’s were artificial therefore their performance might not reflect the way they would perform in everyday life.

Demand characteristics.

Real life applications – Used to improve recall in eyewitness memory when the witnesses are asked to describe their mood/emotional state when the incident they have witnessed took place (cognitive interview).

There is further support for the influence of state-dependent cues.

This theory is difficult to disprove as if recall does not occur is it because the information is not stored or because you are not providing the right cue (circular argument).