explanations for forgetting- interference and retrieval cue failure Flashcards
outline interference theory
one set of info competes with another causing it to be confused in LTM
More likely when learnt close together
and when similar
define proactive interference
previous info competes with new info
NEW is FORGOTTEN
research support for proactive interference
Wickens:
nonsense triagrams
4 trials
3 letter based 1 number based
performance gradually declined in trials 1-3
number based - 100% recall
decline shows evidence of PI
trials 1 interfered with 2,3 - similar
define retroactive interference
when recent info competes with old info
OLD is FORGOTTEN
research support for retroactive interference
Baddeley and Hitch:
rugby players
names of teams - some had played all games others not
played all - poorest recall
results support idea of retroactive interference
learning new info interfered with old causing them to be forgotten
evaluation of interference theory
application to real world
important practical applications
chandler- students studying similar subjects
more likely to experience interference
can be used to help avoid forgetting and improve recall in real world situations such as within education
evaluation of interference theory
artificiality
much research - lab experiments
tasks lack mundane realism
wickens - nonsense trigrams
rare in real life
ecological validity questioned
outline retrieval failure
people forget info due to insufficient cues
not being able to access memories there
encoding specificity principle: if cues are not present at the time of recall and during encoding then the info is not accessible - appears forgotten
define context dependent forgetting
absence of which can lead to context dependent forgetting
e.g. external cues like words places and smell
Define state dependent forgetting
internal- absence of which can lead to state dependent
forgetting e.g. mood emotional state and psychological state
research support for context dependent forgetting
Godden and Baddeley
Field experiment
18 divers - learned 36 list unrelated words either on land or underwater
Wordless recorded created for conditions
Each diver took part in all four
When the context and the recall were different, more likely to forget
Conclusion: forgetting most likely to occur in context are inconsistent
research support for state dependent forgetting
Goodwin et al
Drunk and sober experiment
Learn list when drunk or sober and recall list either drunk or sober after 24 hours
Recall score suggest info learned drunk makes forgetting less likely to occur when asked to recall in the same state
conclusion: mental states are different time of learning and retrieval may appear material is forgotten
evaluation of retrieval failure and interference theory
Research support strength for state dependent forgetting
Large number of research
Carter and Cassidy - drugs to participants
slightly drowsy
Internal physiological state different from normal state
Learn list
When Conditions different memory test significantly worse
it is a strength because it increases the validity of the explanation
evaluation of re Retrieval failure and interference theory
Strength – application to the real world
important practical applications
E.g. cognitive interview
Mental health professions used principal in therapy sessions and improve recovery from trauma
Users cues in treatment increase ability to recall detail details
Used to help and avoid forgetting and improve recall in the real world situation
evaluation of retrieval failure and interference theory
Retrieval cues do not always work
Not very strong in real life
Context have to be very different before effect is seen
In diving study context were extremely different
in the real world - unlikely to result in much forgetting- environment isn’t different enough
Limitation, because does not actually explain all forgetting so validity is reduced
evaluation of retrieval failure and interference theory
Recall vs recognition
context defects only occur when tested in certain ways
G + B replicated underwater experiment using recognition test
No context dependent effects - performance was the same in all four conditions
Limits retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting- presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain life
