Explanations of Forgetting Flashcards
Explanation 1: Interference Theory
- When 2 pieces of information compete with each other.
- One memory disrupts ability to recall another.
- Makes it harder for us to locate memories.
- Competition between memories increases the more similar they are to each other.
- Memories that are interfering are stored at different times.
- 2 types: Proactive and Retroactive.
Proactive interference
- Old learning affects recall of new information.
- Keppel and Underwood investigated this by repeating Petersonx2’s experiment.
- Found that participants typically remembered trigrams that were presented first.
- Supports this explanation as memory for earlier consonants which had transferred to LTM were interfering with memory for new consonants due to the similarity.
Retroactive Interference
- New learning affects recall of old information.
- Schmidt et al investigated this by asking participants to recall street names they had learned in their local neighborhood in childhood.
- Found that as number of times someone had moved outside the area increased so did the number of street names they forgot in the local area.
- Supports this explanation as learning new patterns of street names when moving house makes recall of old patterns of street names more difficult.
Evaluation of Interference - evidence from lab studies
-Supported by research conducted in controlled lab conditions.
- McGeoch and McDonald showed the effects of retroactive interference and how similar info causes information and forgetting. 6 groups learned one list. 5 groups learned 1st and 2nd list. 2nd list different for every group and similarity changed ti 1st list. Participants recalled 1st list. Group with similar lists had the worst recall. Suggests that interference is likely to be one of they ways which we forget info from our LTM.
- Stregnth - variables are controlled therefore adding validity.
Evaluation of Interference - natural evidence
- Supported by research in a natural setting.
- Baddeley and Hitch found that when rugby players were asked to recall names of teams they had played throughout the season, those with more games played had worse recall than those with less games played. Suggests that players who played all games experienced more interference, newer teams played names were remembered causing earlier team names to be forgotten.
- Weakness - study provides real life and ecological valid evidence for the interference theory.
Evaluation of Interference - artificial environments
- Research is often conducted in lab experiments which do not reflect natural memories.
- Amount of time researchers give between learning and recall is limited and is usually around a few minutes, compared to months or years in real life. Suggests a deliberate attempt to induce interference in participants in lab studies.
- Weakness - these lab studies have low ecological validity and results will not demonstrate everyday interference.
Evaluation of interference - artificial materials
- Research is conducted in a lab that often makes use of artificial materials.
- Underwood and McGeoch and McDonald used lists of words in order to test interference. Suggests that studies should make use of real life memories to test interference rather than word lists.
- Weakness - much greater chance interference will be demonstrated in the label, therefore producing biased results.
Explanation 2 - Retrieval Failure
- Based on the idea that memories in LTM are accessible but not available.
- Form of forgetting when we do not have the necessary cues to access a memory.
- Memory is available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided.
- Tulving proposed the encoding specificity principle. States that if a cue is to help recall information it has to be present at encoding and at retrieval. If the cue I different or if they are absent at retrieval then there will be forgetting.
- Two main types - internal or external.
Context dependent forgetting
- Occurs when the environment during recall is different from the environment during learning.
- Godden and Baddeley investigated this by asking experienced deep sea divers to learn lists of words. They either learned the lists of words on land or on water and were asked to recall them either in te same context or in a different context.
- 4 conditions
a) learn lists on land - recall on land
b) learn lists under water - recall under water
c) learn lists on land - recall under water
d) learn lists under water - recall on land. - Found that accurate recall was 40% lower in the non matching conditions.
- External cues available at learning were different from ones at recall leading to retrieval failure.
State dependant forgetting
-Occurs when mood or physiological state during recall than that during learning.
- Carter and Cassaday investigated this by asking participants to take anti histamine drugs making participants slightly drowsy. Creates an internal physiological state different from the normal state of being awake and alert. Participants had to learn lists of words and passages of prose and then recall info,
- 4 conditions.
a) learn lists on drug - recall on drug
b) learn lists on drug - recall not on drug
c) learn lists not on drug - recall not on drug
d) learn lists not on drug - recall on drug
- Found that performance on memory test was significantly worse when there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall. Suggests that when cues were absent there was more forgetting.
Evaluation of Retrieval Failure - supporting evidence
- Cater and Cassiday has demonstrated that state dependant forgetting occurs within a lab setting. Suggests that the absence of cues leads to retrieval failure.
- Strength - evidence increases the validity of retrieval failure as an explanation of fogetting.
Evaluation of Retrieval Failure - Natural Evidence
- Supporting Evidence for the theory conducted in natural environments.
- Godden and Baddeley found evidence of context-dependent forgetting with deep sea divers on land and in the sea, both natural environments. Suggests that context dependent forgetting occurs outside the lab and is not solely an effect of demand characteristics.
- Strength - study provides real life and ecologically valid evidence for retrieval failure.
Evaluation of Retrieval Failure - Ethical Issues
- Carter and Cassiday’s study required participants to take antihistamine drugs which cause drowsiness and other possible side effects. Suggests that we are artificially altering someones internal state which may cause distress and therefore lead to a lack of protection from harm.
- Weakness - raises issues to whether the studies should be carried out making it difficult to gain evidence for the effects of retrieval failure,
Evaluation of Retrieval Failure - questioning context effects
- Context may not have that much of an effect.
- Baddeley argues that learning something in one context and recalling it in another way may not actually cause forgetting unless the two contexts are very different. Suggests that learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to affect memory as the environments are not different enough.
- Weakness - means that context only affects memory when its tested in a certain way, reducing the validity of the explanation.
