2.3 Explanations for Forgetting

Question 1

What is interference?

Answer 1

When two pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in one or both memories becoming distorted or forgotten

Question 2

What are the 2 types of interference?

Answer 2

• Proactive interference
• Retroactive interference

Question 3

What is proactive interference?

Answer 3

Forgetting occurs when older memories, already stored, disrupt the recall of newer memories

Question 4

What is retroactive interference?

Answer 4

Forgetting occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories already stored

Question 5

How does the similarity of memories effect forgetting?

Answer 5

The degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar

Question 6

Describe the research on effects of similarity (McGeoch and McDonald)

Answer 6

• Studied retroactive interference by changing similarity between 2 sets of materials
• Participants had to learn list of 10 words until could be remembered with 100% accuracy
• 6 groups had to also learn a new different lists: synonyms, antonyms, words unrelated to original, consonant syllables, 3-digit numbers, no new list (control)
• When participants asked to recall original list, the most similar material produced worst recall
• Showed that interference stronger when memories are similar

Question 7

Who performed the research on the effects of similarity?

Answer 7

McGeoch and McDonald

Question 8

AO3 for explanations for forgetting (interference)

Answer 8

1. Real-world interference: Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams played, all played for same interval (one season) but number of intervening games varied as players missed games due to injuries, those who played the most games had poorest recall, shows that interference can operate in real situations

2. Interference and cues: interference is temporary and can be overcome with cues, Tulving and Pstoka ( 1971) gave participants lists of words organised into catagories one list at a time, average recall 70% for first list,b but became progressively worse as participants learned additional list, at the end particpants given cued recall test (were told the name of the catagories) recall rose again to 70% , interference causes temporary loss of accessibility to material still in LTM

3. Support from drug studies: Coenen and Luijtelaar (1997) gave participants word list and later asked them to recall, assumed that intervening experiences would act as interference, found that when list of words learned under influence of diazepam, recall one week later was poor (compared to placebo control group), but when list learned before drug taken, later recall was better than placebo, so drug improved recall of material learned beforehand, Wixted (2004) suggests that the drug prevents new information from reaching the part of brain involved in processing so it cannot interfere retroactively, shows that forgetting can be due to interference

Question 9

What is retrieval failure?

Answer 9

A form of forgetting which occurs when we don’t have the necessary cues to access memories

Question 10

What is a cue?

Answer 10

A ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory, these may be meaningful or indirectly linked by being encoded at time of learning

Question 11

Who proposed the encoding specificity principle and what does it state?

Answer 11

• Tulving
• A cue has to be both present at encoding and present at retrieval. If the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different there will be some forgetting

Question 12

What is an example of a meaningful cue?

Answer 12

Mnemonic techniques

Question 13

What are 2 non-meaningful cues?

Answer 13

• Context-dependent forgetting: recall depends on external cue e.g weather
• State-dependent forgetting: recall depends on internal cue e.g mood

Question 14

Who carried out the research on context-dependent forgetting and describe the study

Answer 14

• Godden and Baddeley (1975)
• Studied deep-sea divers to see whether training on land helped or hindered work underwater
• Divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land (four conditions)
• Learn and recall on land, learn on land and recall underwater, learn and recall underwater, learn underwater and recall on land
• Accurate recall 40% lower on non-matching conditions
• External cues available at learning different from ones available at recall (retrieval failure)

Question 15

Who carried out the research on state-dependent forgetting and describe the study

Answer 15

• Carter and Cassidy (1998)
• Gave antihistamine drugs to participants
• Drugs had mild sedative effect making participants slightly drowsy
• Creates internal physiological state different from normal state of being awake
• Participants had to learn and recall list of words
• Four conditions: learn and recall on drug, learn on drug and recall off drug, learn and recall off drug, learn off drug and recall on drug
• When mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance on memory test worse
• When cues absent (e.g being alert learning list and drowsy when recalling) , more forgetting

Question 16

AO3 for explanations for forgetting (retrieval failure)

Answer 16

1. Real-world application: can help overcome forgetting in real situations, Baddeley claims that cues are worth paying attention to, e.g forgetting a task once you enter a new room but remembering again once you enter first room, when forgetting its beneficial when you make the effort to recall the environment in which you learned it, improves recall

2. Research support: context and state dependent forgetting studies (Carter and Cassaday, Godden and Baddeley), show that lack of relevant cues can lead to forgetting in everyday life, Eysenck and Keane (2010) argue retrieval failure is main reason for forgetting from LTM, shows that retrieval failure occurs in real situations as well as highly controlled labs
Counterpoint: Baddeley argues context effect not important in everyday life, contexts would have to be very different before effect is seen e.g land and underwater, less forgetting in environments that are generally not different enough, does not explain everyday forgetting

3. Recall versus recognition: context effects may depend on the type of memory being tested, Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater study but used recognition test instead of recall, participants stated whether they recalled words read from a list instead of retrieving themselves, when recognition tested there was less context dependent effects, performance same in all four conditions, retrieval failure limited explanation, only applies to recall and not recognition