Explanations for Forgetting Flashcards
Two types of forgetting
Interference and Retrieval Failure
Interference
When two pieces of information disrupt each other resulting in the forgetting of one or both of them and some distortion. Occurs in LTM so when it is in there it is pretty much permanent so forgetting due to not getting access is more likely and interference makes it a lot harder for us to locate them.
Two types of Interference
Proactive interference occurs when older memory interferes with new one. Retroactive is when a new memory interferes with old one.
Conditions necessary for Interference
Information being learnt at the same time and if information is similar.
Key Study for Interference
McGeoch and McDonald (1931). Studied retroactive interference by changing amount of similarity between two sets of materials. Participants learnt 10 words to 100% accuracy. Then split into 6 groups each with a different type of list. 1 = synonyms, 2 = antonyms, 3 = words unrelated to the original, 4 = constant synonyms, 5 = three digit numbers, 6 = no new list (control). Found there was worse recall when they had to learn a list that was more similar to original word list, so group 1 did worse. Interference strongest when memories are similar.
Strength (B)
Research support.
Baddeley and Hitch (1977) found rugby players who played more matches had worse recall of the teams they had played against.
Because rugby games very similar and in close time frame so those who had more names were more likely to get them distorted. Gives validity.
Weakness
Temporary and can be overcome by cues.
Tulving and Psotka (1971) found recall was about 70% for first list and became progressively worse with each additional list but when given a cued recall test (told name of the category for the word list) recall rose again to 70%.
Shows never lost just needed recall but this would suggest lost which limits validity.
Furthermore… conditions necessary for interference are rare so lab studies are able to change environment to fit this suggesting may not be an everyday occurrence.
Strength (S)
Support for retroactive.
Schmidt et al (2000) found the more times and individual moved home the fewer street names they could recall around their old school.
Shows memories similar like childhood street names interfered with each other and mean forgotten. Gives validity.
Furthermore.. Greenberg and Underwood (1950) found when gave participants more word pairs to recall, the recall rate decreased supporting proactive interference.
Retrieval Failure
People forget due to an absent of cues. When information initially placed in memory it is associated with cues at the same time. If cues not available at time of recall then may appear as forgotten.
Core Component
Tulving (1983) found a constant pattern in findings, this was called the encoding specificity principle. States that a cue had to be both present at encoding and retrieval or else forgetting will occur. Some cues are coding meaningfully e.g. mnemonic techniques, or non-meaningful way e.g. context-dependent forgetting (external) or state-dependent forgetting (internal).
Key Study for Context-dependent
Godden and Baddeley (1975) studied deep sea divers to see if training on land helped or hindered work underwater. Divers learnt lists of words either underwater or on land and asked to recall them either underwater or on land. Created 4 conditions. Recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions. Concluded external cues available at learning were different from ones available at recall led to retrieval failure.
Key Study for State-dependent
Carter and Cassady (1998) gave antihistamines to participants which acted as a mild sedative. This makes internal physiological state different from ‘normal’. Learnt a list of words either on or off and recalled them either on or off. Created 4 conditions. In mismatched conditions there was worse recall so when cues absent more forgetting.
Strength (P)
Help overcome everyday situations.
Probably gone into one room needing something but then forgetting what it was when you entered so then walked back into original and remembered.
Suggests this helps so can put other strategies in place to help us remember.
However… Baddeley (1997) argues context effects are not strong in real life. The contexts would have to be extremely different and a different room wouldn’t be enough.
Strength (S)
Research support.
Godden and Baddeley (1975) and Carter and Cassaday (1998) two examples that show effect of retrieval cues.
Shows occurs in both real world situations and highly controlled conditions. Gives validity and generalisability.
However… context effects may depend on type of memory tested as Baddeley and Godden (1980) replicated study with recognition test and found no difference. Suggests limited.
Weakness
Encoding specificity principle is not testable.
In experiments where cues produce successful recall assume the cue coded was present at recall if not then assume wasn’t.
Means never know if it actually is occurring and if it has ever occurred so could be different reason.
Furthermore… lacks falsifiability and so is not scientific.
