EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING Flashcards
Define interference theory
- when 2 pieces of information conflict with each other, resulting in the forgetting of one or both (or distortion) in the memory
- theory has been proposed for the forgetting in the LTM
Define proactive interference
occurs when an older memory interferes with a new one
Define retroactive interference
occurs when a new memory interferes with an older one
who studied the effects of similarity?
McGeoch and McDonald
Outline McGeouch and McDonald’s “effect of similarity” study (1931)
- Studied retroactive interference
- 6 groups of ppts learned a list of words until they remembered it with 100% accuracy
- Each group had to learn a second list
- synonyms to orig list, antonyms to orig list, unrelated words, syllables, 3 digit numbers, no new list
- Then had to recall the original list
State results of the “effects of similarity” study (McGeoch and McDonald)
- Those who learned no new list recalled the previous list with the highest accuracy
- Those who learned synonyms recalled the previous list with the lowest accuracy
Explain the results of the “effects of similarity” study (McGeoch and McDonald)
- Learning similar lists of similar words to the previous list causes worse recall of the first list than learning unrelated items (e.g numbers)
- Shows that the similarity of information affects the ability to recall previously learned information
describe Baddeley and Hitch’s investigation regarding interference theory
- wanted to compare 2 explanations for forgetting: decay and interference
- asked rugby players to recall teams played early in season
- some players were injured, so missed games
how did Baddeley and Hitch’s finding support interference theory?
- results showed that the probability of correct recall was dependent on the number of intervening games, not the length of time
- recall for the last game played were equally as good, regardless of whether it was a week or 3 weeks ago
- these findings supports interference theory
what is a limitation of interference theory?
- it is rare for this to be the cause of forgetting in everyday life
- the high degree of control in the laboratory environment is not present in everyday life, meaning the ideal conditions for interference are not present
- for interference, 2 sets of information must be extremely similar, which is not controlled in real life
- this means forgetting is better explained by other reasons
how did Goenen and Luijtelaar research into interference theory?
- gave ppts a list to learn
- those who LEARNED AFTER taking the drug, “diazepam” had poorer recall than the control group, who had a placebo
- those who recalled the list they learned BEFORE taking the drug performed better than the control groups “later” recall
state John Wixted’s explanation for Goenen and Luijtelaar’s drug study
- the drug prevented new info from reaching the part of the brain that processes memories
- so the drug prevents interference
- therefore, info cannot retroactively interfere with previously learned information
- the study showed that interference can cause forgetting
describe Burke and Skrull’s research into supporting interference theory
- presented magazine ads to ppts, who had to recall details
- some had more difficulty recalling earlier ads, others with later ads
- the effect was greater when the ads were similar
- findings suggested that similar info can cause both retro and proactive interference
who proposed and what is “Encoding Specificity Principle”
- Tulving, 1983
- found that for a cue to be helpful in retrieval, it has to be present at both learning and recall
- the less cues available at both learning and recall, the poorer the memory
define and give an example of ‘Meaningful Cues’
- cues that are encoded at the time of learning in a meaningful way
- e.g Mnemonics, images can trigger memories
define and give an example of ‘Non-Meaningful Cues’
- relate to the external environment or the internal state
- e.g. context-dependent (room you learned in), state-dependent (how you felt when learning)
how did Godden and Baddeley’s study support context-dependent forgetting?
- recruited 4 groups of divers to learn a set of words either on land or underwater, then recall either on land or underwater
- found that accurate recall was 40% lower in the conditions where the environment of learning and recall didn’t match
- concluded that external cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall, leading to retrieval failure
- outline Carter and Cassidy’s research
- how does this support state-dependent forgetting?
- had 4 conditions, where ppts learned a list either on a drug (increasing tiredness) or off a drug, and recalled on a drug or off a drug
- found conditions where the internal state did not match at the time of learning and recall, performance was worse
- outline Aggleton and Waskett’s research
- how does this support context-dependent forgetting
- ppts had visited museum w significant smells 6/7years ago
- given a memory test based on museum with 2 conditions
- those who answered in the presence of the smells performed better than those who answered without the smells
- found that when cues that were present at learning are not present at recall, recall is worse
explain the findings of Aggleton and Waskett’s context-dependent study
- smells acted as cues, which triggered memories in the LTM
- found that recall is worse when cues that were present at learning are not present at retrieving
how did Godwin et al’s study support state-dependent forgetting?
- 4 conditions of ppts
- had to learn list of words either sober or drunk
- had to recall 24 hours later either sober or drunk
- forgetting was increased when the internal states did not match
explain the results of Goodwin et al’s state-dependent study
- the internal state of the ppts acted as cues
- when states did not match, forgetting was increased
- because cues that were present at learning were not present at recall
Outline a strength of research into retrieval failure
- real world application
- it has real world application
- Smith showed that thinking of the room where original learning took place is just as effective as being in the same room at recall
- this can result in improved recall in things such as the cognitive interview
Outline a strength of retrieval failure due to lack of cues
- Eysneck’s argument abt high validity
- may be the main reason for forgetting from the LTM
- studies being done were in labs
- this means that validity is increased, due to the high level of control. This means it is ensured that we are studying what we are aiming to investigate
Outline a limitation for forgetting due to context effects
- Baddeley, real-life
- context effects not that strong in real life
- environments must be drastically different (ex. Godden and Baddeley’s underwater experiment)
- may not actually explain forgetting
explain retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
- suggests that forgetting occurs when the cues present at the time of encoding the information are not present at the time of recall.
- This describes Tulving’s ‘encoding specificity principle’
