explanations for forgetting (LTM)
INTERFERENCE:
Assume LTM is permanent store so when u forget something in LTM, likely that u cant access information but it still available
Interference makes it hard to locate memories → ‘ forgetting’
RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF SIMILARITY
McGeoch and Mcdonald
In both proactive and retroactive interference, interference is worse when memories or learning are similar
Procedure
-Studied retroactive interference by changing the amount if similarity between 2 sets of material
-Participants had to learn list of 10 words until they reached 100% accuracy
they then learnt a new list → 6 groups of participants who had to learn diff types of new list
Group 1 → synonyms to words in original list (same meaning)
Group 2 → antonyms to words in original list (opposite meaning)
Group 3 → words unrelated to words in original list
Group 4 → consonant syllables
Group 5 → 3-digit numbers
Group 6 → no new list (control condition)
Findings
when participants asked to recall original list of words, recall was worse when words in new list synonyms (similar materials)
Conclusions
Interference strongest when memories similar
STRENGTHS
Evidence of interference effects in everyday situations
Baddeley and Hitch (1977)
→ Asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played against during a rugby season
→ The players all played for same time interval (over one season) but number of intervening games varied bc some players missed matches due to injury
→ Players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had poorest recall
→ This study shows interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory
Counterpoint
Interference causing forgetting in everyday situations rare bc conditions needed for interference to occur are relatively rare unlike lab studies
(high levels of control → researcher can create ideal conditions for interference)
As McGeoch and Mcdonald concluded, memories have to be similar to interfere w each other
→ May happen occasionally in everyday life but not often whereas in lab, learning and recall are controlled
→ Also in real word, other variables can effect learning and recall but in lab, variables controlled
→ lab produce conditions for interference to occur which may be rare in real word, lowering validity of theory
may be better explained by other theories eg retrieval failure due to lack of cues
Support from drug studies
Anton Coenen and Gilles van Luijtelaar
→gave participants list of words + later asked recall it (assuming the intervening events would act as interterence)
→found that when a list of words was learned under influence of the drug diazepam, recall one week later was poorer compared to placebo control group
→ But when list was learned before drug taken, recall better than placebo control group.
→ So drug improved recall of material learned beforehand
→Wixted suggested the drug prevents new info (experienced after taking drug) reaching parts of brain involved in processing memories so it cannot interfere retroactively with info alr stored
→ Findings show forgetting can be due to interterence - reduce interference, reduce forgetting
WEAKNESS
Interference temporary + can be overcome using cues
Tulving and and Psotka
→ gave participants list of words organised into categories
→ recall around 70% for first list but became progressivley worse as participants learned more lists (proactive interference)
→ at the end, participants given cued recall test and told names of categories
→ recall rose around 70% again
→ shows interference causes temporary loss of access to info still in LTM rather than forgetting
RETRIEVAL FAILURE :
reason ppl forget may be bc insufficient cues
when create a memory, associated cues stored with it
if cues not available at time of recall, may seem like u forgotten info but acc due to retrieval failure so cant access memories
encoding specificity principle (tulving 1983)
tulving looked into reterival failure and noticed a pattern
he summarised this as the encoding specicity principle
this states that in order for a cue (trigger) to help us remeber something, ithas to be there at the encoding stage and the reterival stage
if the cues are different, there will be some forgetting
some cues r meaningful to the material to be remebered
some cues r not meaningful
→ context dependant forgetting → setting
→ state dependant forgetting → physical state
conext- dependant forgetting
→ godden and baddeley
4 conditions
deep sea divers learned word lists and were later asked to recall them
condition 1 → learn on land, recall on land
condtion 2 → learn on land, recall underwater
condition 3 → learn underwater, recall on land
condition 4 -. learn underwater, recall underwater
accurate recall was 40% lower in conditions 2 and 3 in comparison to the matched ones
reterival failure was due to the absence of encoded context cues at the time of recall→ the material was not accessible
state depndant forgetting
carter and cassaday
four conditions
partipcnats learned a list of words/prose and later recalled them
condition 1 → learn when on drugs, recall when on drug
condition 2 → learn on drug, recall when not on drug
condition 3 → learn when not on drug, recall on drug
condition 4 → learn when not on drug, recall when not on drug
recall was significantly worse in conditions 2 and 3
when the cues at encoding are absent at reterival then there is more forgetting
strengths → real world application
we can apply the encoding specificity principle to real world situations
in some cases, when we forget something, we might have to try and remeber where we firsy learnt it
shows us how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall
strengths → research support
2 supporting studied
and further supported by eysenck who argues reterival faiure is main reason we forget
counterpoint → te extent to which we can apply it is quite limited
eg classrooms r all quite similar so it would be hard to ink the encoding specifity principle to this scenario
so maybe it doesnt have as much application to the real world as we may have thought
limitations → recall vs recognition
it has been argued that the context might depend on the type of memory being tested
godden and abddley replicated their underwatwer study
they did a recognition task instead f a recall task
partyicpats had to see if they recognisised a word read off a lisy. instead of reterieving it themselves
it was found that the performance of all of the groups were the same regardless of whether they were in the same context