Explanations for Forgetting

Question 1

Interference

Answer 1

An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another

Question 2

Proactive Interference

Answer 2

Past learning interferes with current learning

Question 3

Retroactive Interference

Answer 3

Current learning interferes with past learning

Question 4

Decay

Answer 4

Information being lost from memory store

Question 5

Muller & Pilzecker (1900)

Case Study: Retroactive Interference

Answer 5

• Gave participants lists of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 minutes
• After a retention interval, they were asked to recall lists
• Performance was less good if participants had been given an intervening task

Question 6

Underwood (1957)

Case Study: Proactive Interference

Answer 6

• Analysed findings from a number of studies
• Participants memorised 10+ lists - after 24 hrs they remembered 20% of what they learn
• Learned only 1 list - recall 70%<

Question 7

McGeoch & McDonald (1931)

Similarity of Test Materials & Evaluation

Answer 7

• Gave participants a list of 10 adjectives (List A), followed by a 10 minute interval where they learned List B
• If List B was full of synonyms of List A, recall was poor (12%), if it was full of nonsense syllables, it has less effect (26%)
• Shows interference is strongest when items are more similar
• Good Real World Applications for students

Question 8

Cricisms of Research

Answer 8

• Similar memories occur quite rarely, so it is argued that interference is a relatively unimportant explanation for everyday forgetting

Question 9

Supporting Research: Baddeley & Hitch (1997)

Answer 9

• Rugby players asked to remember names of teams played in a season - some missed games due to injury and some played all
• Those who played the most games in a season forgot more team names
• Proves interference

Question 10

Cue

Answer 10

Things that help retrieve information from LTM

Question 11

Retrieval Failure

Answer 11

When information cannot be accessed due to a lack of cues (information is avaliable but is inaccessible)

Question 12

Encoding Specificity Principle: Tulving & Thomson (1973)

Answer 12

• Proposed memory is most effective is info present at encoding is available at retrieval
• A cue doesn’t have to be exactly right, but the closer it is to the original item, the more useful it will be

Question 13

Encoding Specificity Principle: Tulving & Thomson (1973)

Answer 13

• Showed value of cues in their lab experiment which asked participants to learn 48 words, belonging to 12 categories
• Each word was presented as a category + word (eg. Fruit - Apple)
• Two different recall conditions (free v cued recall)
• Free Recall - 40%, Cued Recall - 60%

Question 14

Context-Dependent Forgetting: Abernethy (1940)

Answer 14

• Field experiment with students with 4 categories
• 1) Tested in teaching room by usual instructor
• 2) Tested in teaching room by different instructor
• 3) Tested in different room by usual instructor
• 4) Tested in different room by different instructor
• Those tested by the usual instructor in the same room performed best - context acted as a cue

Question 15

State-Dependent Forgetting: Goodwin et al (1969)

Answer 15

• Asked male volunteers to remember list of words they learned when either drunk/sober
• Participants asked to recall lists after 24 hours when some were sober, but others had to get drunk again
• Recall higher when in the same state as learning

Question 16

State-Dependent Forgetting: Tulving & Psotka (1971)

Answer 16

• Demonstrated that apparent interference effects are actually due to absence of cues
• More lists learned = worse performance
• When given cued recall, interference effects disappeared - remembered ~70% of words regardless of how many lists given