deck_18488883

Question 1

What is interference as an explanation for forgetting?

Answer 1

• Interference serves as a cause of forgetting in long-term memory (LTM).
• Information in LTM is essentially permanent; forgetting stems from difficulty accessing rather than loss of information.
• occurs when the retrieval of a memory is disrupted by the presence of other competing or similar information
• interference suggests that memories may interfere with each other, making it challenging to recall specific information

Question 2

What is PROACTIVE interference?

Answer 2

occurs when OLD existing memories affects attempts to recall something NEW i.e. the memory of an old telephone number disrupts attempts to recall a new phone number.

Question 3

What is RETROACTIVE interference?

Answer 3

occurs when newly learned information (NEW memories) affects the recall of existing memories (OLD MEMORIES) i.e. the memory of your new car registration number prevents recall of a previous one.

Question 4

What are the effects of similarity with both types of interference?

Answer 4

• In both cases (proactive and retroactive) interference is more likely to occur when the conflicting information is more similar to one another.
• For example, interference is likely to be greater when revising French and then Spanish than there would be when revising Maths and then English.

Question 5

Underwood and Postman (1960) method?

Answer 5

1. Carried out a lab experiment, participants split into two groups,
2. Both groups given a list of paired words to learn, e.g. cat-tree,
3. The experimental group was then given a second list of words to learn, where the first of the words in each pair was the same as in the first list, e.g. cat-dirt,
4. The control group wasn’t given a second word-list,
5. Both groups were then tested on their recall of the first word list, by being given the first word of each word pair.

Question 6

Underwood and Postman (1960), findings?

Answer 6

Recall was better in the control group, suggesting that retroactive interference of the second word list had affected recall for the experimental group.

Question 7

Underwood (1957), method and findings?

Answer 7

1. Studied proactive interference by looking at the results of studies into forgetting over a 24-hour period,
2. Found that if people had previously learnt 15 or more word lists during the same experiment, a day later their recall of the last word list was around 20%,
3. If they hadn’t learnt any earlier lists, recall a day later was around 80%,
4. Underwood concluded that proactive interference from the earlier lists had afected the participants’ ability to remember later ones.

Question 8

Positive evaluations of interference theory?

Answer 8

1. Supported by myriad studies, many of which were highly controlled laboratory experiments,
2. There is evidence of interference existing in real-world settings too, e.g. in language learning.

Question 9

Negative evaluations of interference theory?

Answer 9

1. Interference effects are much greater in artifical laboratory settings than they in real-life,
2. Gives an explanation for why we forget, but doesn’t go into the cognitive or biological processes involved - it doesn’t explain why or how interference happens.

Question 10

retrieval failure

Answer 10

the inability to recall long-term memories because of inadequate or missing retrieval cues
- cue-dependent forgetting occurs when insufficient cues are available during recall.
It may seem like forgetting, but it’s actually retrieval failure.
- the information remains in long-term memory but is temporarily inaccessible

Question 11

cue

Answer 11

any stimulus that triggers memory

Question 12

What is the encoding specificity principle? (retrieval failure)

Answer 12

Tulving’s suggestion: the closer the retrieval cue is to the original cue, the more effective it is.
ESP’s suggestion: Forgetting is more likely if cues during encoding differ from those during retrieval.
* The ESP states that you are more likely to forget if the cues available during encoding are different to those during retrieval.

Question 13

meaningful cues

Answer 13

Some cues are linked to the material in a meaningful way, aiding recall, e.g ‘STM’ cue leading to the recall of information about short-term memory.

Question 14

non-meaningful cues

Answer 14

some cues are present during encoding but not linked to the material e.g Context-dependent forgetting (external cues) and state-dependent forgetting (internal cues)

Question 15

What is state-dependent forgetting?

Answer 15

being in a different mood/state of arousal may inhibit memory (internal)

Question 16

What is context-dependent forgetting?

Answer 16

being in a different place may inhibit memory (external)

Question 17

What is category dependent forgetting?

Answer 17

lack of organisation may inhibit memory

Question 18

Tulving and Psotka (1971), method?

Answer 18

1. Compared the theories of interference and cue-dependent forgetting,
2. Each participant was given either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 lists of 24 words. Each list was divided into 6 categories of 4 words,
3. Words were presented in category order, e.g. all animals, then all trees, etc.,
4. After the lists were presented, in one condition, participants had to simply recall all the words - total free recall,
5. In another condition, participants were given all the category names and had to try and recall words from the list - free cued recall.

Question 19

Tulving and Psotka (1971), findings?

Answer 19

1. In the total free recall condition, there seemed to be evidence of retroactive interference,
2. Participants with 1 or 2 lists to remember had higher recall than those with more lists to remember, suggesting the later lists were interfering with remembering the earlier lists,
3. In the cued recall tests, the effects o retroactive interference disappeared. It didn’t matter how many lists the participant had - recall was still the same for each list (about 70%).

Question 20

Tulving and Psotka (1971), conclusion?

Answer 20

1. The results suggest that interference had not caused forgetting,
2. Because the memories became accessible if a cue was used, it showed that they were available, but just inaccessible,
3. Therefore, the forgetting shown in the free recall condition was cue-dependent forgetting.

Question 21

Tulving and Psotka (1971), evaluations?

Answer 21

1. Was a laboratory experiment; highly controlled; reducing effects of extraneous variables,
2. Lacks ecological validity; artifical setting and tasks,
3. Only tested memory of words; results cannot be reliably generalised to information of other types.

Question 22

Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) study in support of context dependent forgetting?
- procedure

Answer 22

FIELD EXPERIMENT with deep-sea divers focusing on memory recall in a life-and-death context.
Divers learnt and recalled a list of words either underwater or on land, creating 4 experimental conditions.
Emphasis on the importance of remembering instructions given before diving.

Question 23

Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) study in support of context dependent forgetting?
- results
- conclusion

Answer 23

Results: Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions than matching.
Conclusion: This was because the external cues available at learning were different from ones at recall and this led to retrieval failure.

Question 24

Carter and Cassady’s (1998) study in support of state-dependent forgetting?
- procedure

Answer 24

• Carter and Cassady (1998) conducted a lab experiment using anti-histamines with mild sedative effects which resulted in drowsiness
• participants tasked with learning and recalling a list of words and passages of prose either on or off the drugs, creating 4 experimental conditions.

Question 25

Carter and Cassady's (1998) study in support of state-dependent forgetting? - results, - conclusion.

Answer 25

Results: In the conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at time of learning and recall, performance on the memory test was significantly worse. Conclusion: This shows that forgetting is more likely to occur when the internal cues at encoding are absent at retrieval (such as drowsy when recalling but alert when learning)

Question 26

What is a strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting? ✓ there is a large body of evidence to support the effects of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.

Answer 26

P: One strength is that there is a large body of evidence to support the effects of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting. Evidence - In this study, divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land, and then were asked to recall the words under four conditions: (1) learn on land, recall on land, (2) learn underwater, recall on land, (3) learn on land, recall underwater, and (4) learn underwater, recall underwater. The findings showed that accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions (learning and recall in different environments). In contrast, recall was much better when the environment at learning and recall matched. Analysis - This suggests that environmental context plays a significant role in memory retrieval. When the cues present at encoding (learning) and retrieval (recall) do not match, retrieval failure occurs, leading to forgetting. This supports the idea that memory retrieval is enhanced when the environment is consistent at both stages. Link - Therefore, this research supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting, highlighting the importance of context in memory recall. Counterpoint - However, when recognition was tested, no context-dependent effect was observed. Performance was the same in all four conditions (learn on land/underwater and recall on land/underwater). Analysis - This suggests that context may not always affect memory retrieval, particularly in tasks involving recognition rather than recall. Recognition may rely less on environmental cues, and thus retrieval failure may be less of a factor in these situations. Link - Therefore, while retrieval failure is a valid explanation for forgetting in some contexts, it may not

Question 27

What is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting? ✘ context effects are actually not very strong in real life.

Answer 27

P: A limitation is that context effects are actually not very strong in real life. E: The experiments into retrieval failure tend to rely on very different and extreme contexts in order to create conditions for forgetting. * Different contexts would have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen, whereas in real life we would rarely, if ever, encounter an environment as different from land as underwater. A: In contrast, learning something in one room (such as a classroom) and recalling in another (such as an exam room) is unlikely to result in much forgetting because these environments are generally not different enough. * This is a limitation because it means that the real-life applications of retrieval failure due to context cues don't actually explain much forgetting.

Question 28

What is a limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting? ✘ context effects only occur when memory is tested in certain ways

Answer 28

P: A limitation is that context effects only occur when memory is tested in certain ways. E: The context effect may be related to the type of memory being tested. A: Godden and Baddeley's findings only occurred when the divers had to free-recall items learned. When given a recognition test (involving saying whether a named item was in a Iist or not), the context effect wasn't seen. L: This is a limitation as it means that the real life applications of retrieval failure may only apply when someone has to recall information, and not when recognising it. This reduces the validity of the theory.

Question 29

What is a strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting? ✓ context-related cues have useful everyday practical applications

Answer 29

P: A strength is that context-related cues have useful everyday practical applications E: An application is that when we have problems remembering something it is probably worth making the effort to revisit the environment in which you first experienced it. A: This is a basic principle of the 'Cognitive Interview' - The aim is to jog the memory of witnesses by recreating the context of the incident through the use of retrieval cues in a technique known as 'context reinstatement'. L: Witnesses may for example be asked to think of cues such as what they were wearing at the time or actually be taken back to the scene of the crime. Therefore, providing valuable practical applications.