Explanations for Forgetting - Retrieval Failure + Interference Flashcards
What is the definition of a cue?
A ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access memory. Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
Cues could be:
-external (have an environmental context)
-internal (mood or degree of drunkenness)
What is the encoding specificity principle?
states that if a cue is to help us recall information it has to be present at encoding and at retrieval
-if the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different (or if cues are absent at retrieval) there will be some forgetting
Explain the retrieval failure explanations for forgetting
CONTEXT - DEPENDENT FORGETTING:
Godden and Baddeley made divers learn a list of words either on land or underwater and made them recall these words either on land or underwater
RESULTS:
-Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions
-BC the external cues available at learning were different from the external cues at recall which led to retrieval failure
STATE - DEPENDENT FORGETTING:
Carter and Cassaday gave participants anti-histamine drug which had a slight sedative effect which made them slightly drowsy. This opposed their ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert. The participants had to learn a list of words either on the drug or not on the drug and then recall these words/passages on the drug or not on the drug
RESULTS:
-in non-matching internal conditions = memory test performance was significantly worse
-So, when internal cue is different at recall from learning there is more forgetting
Evaluate the retrieval failure explanations for forgetting
1) Retrieval failure explanations for forgetting have real-life applications.
- Principles of context state forgetting have been used in the cognitive interview in the stage called context reinstatement, where witnesses return to the original scene in their mind (internal/external cues) - this helps to increase the accuracy of EWT
2) CONTEXT-DEPENDENT FORGETTING:
- Baddeley argues different contexts have to be very different for context to have an effect. e.g recalling information in a different room to which it was learnt is unlikely to result in much forgetting
- Opposes theory, as it suggests context effects are not that strong in real life, as it is hard to find very different contexts. So, difficult to generalise to real-life applications
3) The context effect may be related to the kind of memory being tested. Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall - participants had to identify whether they recognised a word read to them from a list, instead of retrieving it for themselves. They found there was no context dependent effect; performance was the same in all four conditions. This is a limitation because it suggests presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you are tested in a certain way.
4) The encoding specificity principle is not testable and leads to a form of circular reasoning. In experiments where a cue produces the successful recall of a word, we assume the cue must have been encoded at the time of learning. If a cue does not result in successful recall of a word, then we assume the cue was not encoded at the time of learning. But these are just assumptions - there is no way to independently establish if the cue was actually encoded.
Describe interference theory explanations for forgetting
RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE:
current attempts to learn something interferes with past learning
-Muller and Pilzecker tested the effects of retroactive interference
-ppts given list of nonesense syllables that they had to learn in 6 mins. After retention interval they had to recall list
RESULTS:
-Ppts given intervening task between initial learning and recall =performed worse recall test
-intervening task caused retroactive interference as later task of describing pics interferes with the nonsense syllables they learnt earlier
PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE:
Past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something
-Underwood analysed findings from a number of studies - concluded ppts don’t learn later word lists as well as word lists earlier on in the sequence
RESULTS:
Memorised 10 or more word lists - recalled 20%
Memories only 1 list - recalled over 70%
SO
More words lists needed to learn = worse recall due to proactive interference, as each list makes it harder to learn later word lists
Define interference
An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another which is most likely to occur when the 2 memories have some similarity
Describe the effects of similarity on interference
In both retroactive and proactive interference, the effect on forgetting is worse when the memories are similar
McGeoch and McDonald’s research:
-ppts learnt 10 adjectives, 10 mins resting interval during which they learnt list B
- List B either synonyms of List A, nonsense syllables or numbers
RESULTS:
If list B was synonyms of list A = recall poor (12%)
If list B nonsense syllables = (26% accuracy)
If list B numbers = best recall (37%)
-interference stronger = more similar the items
- only interference can explain these effects not decay
Evaluate interference theory as an explanation for forgetting
1) Muller and Pilzecker, McGeoch and McDonald and Underwood used lab experiments
- strength: high control over extraneous variables, so more certain cause and effect meaning there is high internal validity
- limitation: not realistic tasks so less mundane realism. So, lacks generalisability so, low external validity
2) Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall all the teams they had played so far that season
RESULTS:
-accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches were but rather the number of games they had played in the meantime
- This shows forgetting did not depend on information decay but rather the interference of information ( in this case number of matches in between)
- This research has high external validity showing that this explanation for forgetting can be applied to the real world
3) Tulving and Psotka found recall was about 70% when words were categorised. Recall dropped when given an additional list to learn. Cued recall test at the end, recall rose back to 70%
- This shows that the words had not actually been replaced as interference suggest, but had been forgotten due to retrieval failure. So, explanation of interference may not be as important as retrieval failure.
