explanations for forgetting Flashcards
what is proactive interference?
- when old information stored in the ltm prevents the learning of new information
- usually occurs when the new info is similar to the old
keppel and underwood (1962) - the effect of proactive interference on ltm
participants given 3 letter constant trigrams at different time intervals. they had to count back in 3’s before recalling to prevent rehearsal. they found participants remembered the trigrams presented first, irrespective of the interval length. the results suggest proactive interference occurred
what is retroactive interference?
when learning new info prevents the recall of old info stored in the ltm
baddeley and hitch (1977) - investigating retroactive interference in everyday memory
sample of rugby union players who had played every match in the season, and players who missed some matches due to injury. the length of time from the start to end of the season was the same for all players, they were used to recall the names of the teams they played. they found the players who did the most games proportionately forgot more games than those who missed some games. they concluded this was the results of retroactive interference
give a strength of interference theories
1/1
baddeley and hitch are supported by other researchers. mcgeoch and mcdonald (1931) gave participants 10 adjectives to learn (list A), then one of 6 other lists (list B) to learn. they found recall was worst when the lists were closest in similarity. this supports retroactive interference, the greater the similarity, the greater the interference
give a limitation of interference theories
1/2
research only provides insight into a specific type of forgetting, memory for similar information. e.g. baddeley and hitch show retroactive interference in rugby union players recalling team names, and keppel and underwood show proactive interference through learning 3 letter constant trigrams. both these studies demonstrate interference for similar information, so research is limited in it’s real world applications and can only explain forgetting in certain situations
give a limitation of interference theories
2/2
research is criticised for being artificial and lacking ecological validity. most research into interference is done in a lab using meaningless stimuli, e.g. 3 letter trigrams and simple word lists. therefore the findings don’t represent everyday interference so are limited in their application to everyday memory
context dependent forgetting
occurs when environmental cues (e.g. the room the info was learnt) that were present at the time of coding are not present at the time of retrieval
godden and baddeley (1975) - investigating the effect of contextual cues on recall
18 participants (13 male and 5 female) from a uni diving club, they were split into 4 conditions of learning and recalling on land and underwater. repeated measures design where each person did all 4 conditions, over 4 separate days. they were given 38 words which they heard twice, they had to write what they remembered. found the words learnt underwater were best recalled underwater, and those learnt on land were best recalled on land. therefore we can conclude that environmental cues aid recall
give a limitation of context dependent forgetting
1/3
godden and baddeley didnt control many other variables. the divers did the experiment at different times of the day at different locations. so each diver would have experienced other contextual cues that may have affected their memory. so we cannot conclude the results of the study are due to the land/underwater contextual cues or another contextual cue provided by the time of day or diving location
give a limitation of context dependent forgetting
2/3
used a repeated measures design as each participant did all 4 conditions. the divers may have worked out the aim of the study and displayed demand characteristics or order effects. by the end they may have demonstrated practice effects or even fatigue effects. an independent measures design may be more suitable, however this would require many more participants which may be hard to achieve. only used 18 divers. the context examined is extreme so provides little insight into context dependent forgetting in real life
give a limitation of context dependent forgetting
3/3
criticised for breaking ethical guidelines, specifically protection from harm. in their report they said one diver was nearly ran over in an underwater experiment session by an ex army amphibious DUKW. more precautions should have been taken to ensure the divers safety
state dependent forgetting
occurs when the emotional or psychological state present at the time of coding is not present at the time of retrieval. this is often the case with alcohol intoxication
carter and cassaday (1998) - examining state dependent forgetting using anti histamine drugs
participants had to learn a list of words and excerpts from a text then had to recall at a later point. there were 4 conditions of learning and recalling with or without the anti histamines. when the learning and recalling states matched, memory improved. therefore state dependent forgetting is likely when the psychological/emotional cues present at the time of coding are missing at the time of retrieval
give a strength of state dependent forgetting
1/2
research support. goodwin et al (1969) asked male volunteers to remember lists of words when drunk or sober, then had to recall then 24 hours later while drunk or sober. recall was best when learning and recall states matched. this supports state dependent retrieval failure
