5. Explainations for Forgetting Flashcards
2 explanations for forgetting
- interference theory
- retrieval failure due to an absence of cues
two types of interference
retroactive interference
proactive interference
Description of Interference as an explanation for forgetting:
introduction
Forgetting (the failure to recall or recognise learned material) has been explained in different ways depending on the specific circumstances involved.
‘Interference’ occurs when one memory disrupts (interferes with) our ability to recall another
most likely to occur when two memories are similar, and it is very likely that the two (or more) memories that are interacting with each other were stored at different times
Description of Interference as an explanation for forgetting:
Retroactive interference
RI occurs when newly learned information disrupts our recall of older memories
This is because the later memory task interferes with the recall of the original, associated memory
eg, learning the Spanish then Italian word for ‘thank you’ then struggling to recall the Spanish word learnt first
Description of Interference as an explanation for forgetting:
Proactive interference
PI occurs when older memories disrupt our ability to learn and recall new information
this is because the original memory interferes with the formation of the new, associated memory
eg: living in UK/driving on the left then struggling to drive in the right in the USA
Evaluation of Interference as an explanation for forgetting:
strengths
P: evidence to support RI from Postman (1960)
E: lab experiment. remember list of paired words. experimental group given another list of word where the second pair was different. had to recall the words on the first list
E: control group was more accurate
L: learning items in second list (new info) interfered with their ability to recall the original list (old info): RI
P: evidence to support RI from McGeogh and McDonald (1931)
E: learned word list w 100% accuracy, given range of new lists. the more similar the second list to the first list, the poorer the recall of the first list
E: even very strong memories can be disrupted by new learning if the info is similar
L: supports the strong effects if RI
P: evidence to support RI from Schmidt et al (2000)
E: pps who had moved house more could remember less of the street names in the neighbourhood of where they went to school
E: learning new patterns of street names when moving house made recalling old street names more difficult
L: new info disrupts ability to recall offer info : RI
P: evidence to support PI from Underwood (1957)
E: meta-analysis: ppl learnt series of word lists. lists given later in series recalled less accurately
E: earlier word lists (old info) disrupts (interferes with) ability to recall later word lists (new info)
L: supports the nature of PI in the learning of words
Evaluation of Interference as an explanation for forgetting:
limitations
P: research for RI and PI uses meaningless materials
E: materials don’t reflect materials we use our memory for in the real-world
E: Underwood (1957): word lists is less realistic compared to everyday memory activities where info is more meaningful and varied
L: findings can’t be generalised (not representative) - low external validity. rarely have to remember similar things: relatively unimportant explanation for forgetting
Description of retrieval failure as an explaination for forgetting:
introduction
RF occurs when a memory is available but we cannot access it because we don’t have the necessary triggers (cues) to do so
this is because when memories are initially coded we often code where we were at the time the info was learned (context) or how we felt (state)
in the same way our memory is often triggered by returning to the context in state in which we fist experienced a memory, we often also forget information (or fail to retrieve it) when there triggers or cues are not present at the time of retrieval (or recall)
two types of retrieval failure
context-dependant forgetting
state-dependent forgetting
Description of retrieval failure as an explaination for forgetting:
context-dependent forgetting
C-D F is an inability to retrieve a memory due to an absence of environmental triggers (cues) at the time of retrieval
eg: learning a fact in one room and struggling to recall in another classroom
eg: struggling to remember a word before given a prompt
Description of retrieval failure as an explaination for forgetting:
state-dependent forgetting
S-D F is an inability to retrieve a memory due to being in a different mental state at the time of retrieval to that when the memory was initially coded
eg: learning new info when upset and struggling to remember when feeling happier
Evaluation of retrieval failure as an explaination for forgetting:
strengths
P: evidence for CDF from diff studies
E: Abernethy (1940) pps learnt info in one room from one instructor, struggled to recall in diff room w diff instructor
E: Godden & Baddeley (1975) scuba divers remembering info underwater/on land more likely to recall when learning context matched retrieval context
L: retrieval occurs in range of diff context
P: evidence for SDF from Goodwin et al (1969)
E: ppls learnt word list when drunk/sober more likely to recall when learning state matched retrieval state
E: SDF applies to degrees of intoxication as well as emotion
L: evidence from variety of diff states to support SDF
P: evidence for SDF from Darley et al (1973)
E: ppl hid money when high, more likely to remember where when learning state matched retrieval state
E: SDF applies to degrees of intoxication as well as emotion
L: evidence supports SDF as an exp for forgetting
P: practical applications
E: research used to reduce forgetting in the real world
E: Smith (1979) thinking of room where info learnt was as effective as being there: context reinstatement
L: may help ppl to recall info more easily eg in EWT or schools
Evaluation of retrieval failure as an explaination for forgetting:
limitations
P: major criticism from Smith & Vela (2001)
E: meta-analysis - RF only occurred when info was word lists; when info was more meaningful the influence of context was largely eliminated
E: RF may explain some forgetting, but not all
L: forgetting more complex than interference theory or retrieval failure can account for - more research needed
