Explanations of Forgetting Flashcards
Explanation 1: Interference Theory
- forgetting can occur due to interference
- 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.
-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.
- Strength - 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.
- eg both UnderWood and McGeoch and McDonald used lists of words in order to test interference
- this suggests that studies should make use of real life memories such as identification of faces in order to test interference, as opposes to word lists
- this is a weakness because there is much greater chance interference will be demonstrated in a lab, therefore biasing results
Explanation 2: Retrieval failure
- based on the idea that memories in LTM are accessible but not available
- form of forgetting when we don’t have necessary clues to access a memory
- memory is available but not accessible unless certain cue (trigger) is provided
- Tulving (1983) suggested that the encoding specificity principle
- if a cue is to help recall information, it has to present at encoding (where we learn the material) and at retrieval (when we are recalling it)
- if the cue availability at encoding or retrieval are different- or if they are absent at retrieval there will be forgetting
Two main types of cues for retrieval
- Internal
- External
Context dependant forgetting
contact dependant forgetting- occurs when the environment during recall is different from the environment you are learning in
Goden and Baddeley (1975)- study of context dependant forgetting
- investigated context- dependant forgetting by asking experienced deep sea divers to learn lists of words
- the divers either learnt the list of words either on land or underwater and were asked to recall them either in the same context or a different context.
- four contexts
1) learn on land- recall on land
2) learn underwater- recall under water
3) learn on land- recall under water
4) learn underwater- recall on land
Goden and Baddeley (1975)- study of context dependant forgetting - finding
- they found that recall was 40% lower in non matching conditions - context of recall was different
- external cues available at learning were different from the ones at recall- this led to retrieval failure
- provides clear evidence for context dependant forgetting
state dependant forgetting
- occurs when your mood or physiological state during recall is different from the mood/state you were in when you were learning
Carter and Cassaday (1998)- study of state dependant forgetting
- investigated state dependant forgetting by asking participants to take anti histamine drugs that had a mildly sedative effect on the participants, making them slightly drowsy
- this creates an internal physiological state different from the ‘normal’ state of being alert and awake.
- the P’s had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall the information
the four conditions were
1)learn list on drugs- recall on drugs
2)learn on drug- recall when not on drug
3) learn not on drug- recall when not on drug
4) learn not on drug- recall on drug
Carter and Cassaday (1998)- study of state dependant forgetting - finding
- they found that performance on the memory test was significantly worse when there was a mismatch between internal state and learning and recall
-suggests that when cues were absent (eg being drowsy when recalling but being alert when learning) there is more forgetting
- research provides clear evidence of state dependant forgetting
