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 the “effect of similarity” study
- 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
how did Carter and Cassidy’s research 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
how did Aggleton and Waskett’s research 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
what is a strength of research into retrieval failure?
- 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
what is Eysneck’s argument supporting retrieval failure due to lack of cues?
- 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
state the limitation for retrieval failure (due to context effects) provided by Baddley
- argues that
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’
