Explanations of Forgetting

Question 1

What is forgetting?

Answer 1

The failure to retrieve.

Question 2

What is interference theory?

(Interference theory)

Answer 2

An explanation of forgetting that sees forgetting due to information in LTM becoming confused with or disrupted by other information during coding, leading to inaccurate recall.

Question 3

When is interference theory likely to occur?

(Interference theory)

Answer 3

When memories are similar.

Question 4

What are the two types of interference?

(Interference theory)

Answer 4

Proactive Interference (PI).

Retroactive Interference (RI).

Question 5

Outline and give an example for proactive interference.

(Interference theory)

Answer 5

Occurs when information stored previously interferes with an attempt to recall something new.

For example, learning to drive an automatic car - keep reaching for the gear stick/ wanting to put your foot on a clutch pedal that isn’t there.

Question 6

Outline and give an example for retroactive interference.

(Interference theory)

Answer 6

Occurs when coding new information disrupts information stored previously.

For example, the memory of a new car registration prevents you from recalling your old one.

Question 7

Outline Baddeley and Hitch’s study from 1977.

(Supports interference theory (over trace theory) as an explanation for forgetting)
(Interference theory)

Answer 7

Baddeley and Hitch, (1977):

Supports interference theory (over trace theory) as an explanation for forgetting.

This is because PPs played a varying number of rugby union games, trying to remember as many of the teams they had played against as possible.

It was found that forgetting was due more to the number of games played, rather than time passed between games.

This suggests interference theory rather than trace theory, as games may have been viewed as similar.

Question 8

How was interference theory assessed in Baddeley and Hitch’s 1977 study?

(Rugby union study)
(Interference theory)

Answer 8

Interference theory was tested by assessing how recall was affected by the number of games played.

Question 9

How was trace decay theory assessed in Baddeley and Hitch’s 1977 study?

(Rugby union study)
(Interference theory)

Answer 9

Trace decay theory was tested by assessing the amount of time that had passed between each game played.

Question 10

Outline the procedure of Schmidt et al’s study from 2000.

(Interference theory)

Answer 10

Collected 700 names randomly from a data base of 1700 former students of a Dutch elementary school and were sent a questionnaire.

211 responded, aged 11-79.

They were given a map of Molenberg Neighbourhood (where they went to school), with all 48 street names connected to numbers.

Example questions included, e.g. how often they moved? How long had they lived there for? Etc.

Question 11

How was the amount of retroactive interference assessed? Was this reliable?

(Interference theory)

Answer 11

The number of times individuals had moved to other neighbourhoods or cities.

This was very reliable.

Question 12

What was found from Schmidt et al’s study from 2000?

(Interference theory)

Answer 12

Positive association between the number of times PPs had moved house outside the Molenberg Neighbourhood and the number of street names forgotten.

Question 13

What was concluded from Schmidt et al’s study from 2000?

(Interference theory)

Answer 13

Study suggests that learning new patterns of street names when moving house makes recalling an older pattern of street names harder to do.

Retroactive interference does seem to be able to explain forgetting in some real-life situations.

Question 14

Outline Schmidt et al’s study from 2000.

(Supports retroactive interference as an explanation of forgetting)
(Interference theory)

Answer 14

Supports retroactive interference as an explanation of forgetting.

211 participants aged 11-79 were given a map of Molenberg Neighbourhood (where they went to school), with all 48 street names connected to numbers - and were asked interview questions.

They found that there was a positive association between the number of times PPs had moved house outside the Molenberg Neighbourhood and the number of street names forgotten.

This suggests that learning new patterns of street names when moving house makes recalling an older pattern of street names harder to do.

Question 15

Outline two evaluative points for interference theory.

(Evaluation of Interference Theory)

Answer 15

Only really explains forgetting when two sets of information are similar. For example, rugby teams needing to be identified, when asking a rugby player (memories homogenise). Therefore, we are not able to comprehensively explain forgetting in everyday life.

Tends to use laboratory experiments, thus lacking mundane realism.

Cognitive processes at work are not understood.

There is research which supports cue dependent failure and other explanations of forgetting, meaning IT cannot explain all examples of forgetting.

Question 16

What is CDF?

(Cue-Dependent Failure/ Forgetting)

Answer 16

Occurs when information is still in LTM, but cannot be accessed.

Sees recall as dependent upon retrieval cues - like the labels on a filing cabinet.

Recall is dependent upon accessing the information by remembering the retrieval cue under which the information is stored.

Question 17

Give 2 evaluative points for CDF.

(Cue-Dependent Failure/ Forgetting)

Answer 17

Much research is lab-based (lacks mundane realism as memory tasks not representative of real life).

In research such as Godsend and Baddeley’s, the effects were only seen when free-recall was allowed for PPs.
This meant that the explanatory power of the CDF was limited.

Cue-dependent failure supports the idea that information is processed deeply. This means there are more connections and more associations. This decreases the chances of forgetting - more retrieval cues available for recall. This links to Freud’s ideas of suppression, where information is kept in the deep ‘unconscious’.

Question 18

What is CODF?

(Context-Dependent Failure)

Answer 18

Occurs with external retrieval cues.

Forgetting occurs when the external environment is different at recall from how it was at coding.

Question 19

What is SDF?

(State-Dependent Failure)

Answer 19

Occur with internal retrieval cues.

Forgetting occurs when an individual’s internal environment is dissimilar at recall to when information was encoded.

Question 20

Outline Abernethy’s study from 1940.

(Supports context-dependent failure (CODF) as an explanation of forgetting)
(Evaluation of CODF)

Answer 20

Supports context-dependent failure (CODF) as an explanation of forgetting.

This is because they found that PPs after learning some material recalled it worse than tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room, than PPs tested by a familiar teacher in a familiar room.

This suggests CODF can be used to explain some situations of forgetting.

Question 21

Outline Godsend and Baddeley’s study from 1975.

(Supports context-dependent failure (CODF) as an explanation of forgetting)
(Evaluation of CODF)

Answer 21

Supports context-dependent failure (CODF) as an explanation of forgetting.

This is because they got divers to learn material either on land or underwater, finding that recall was worse when it occurred in a different context, to coding than the same context.

This suggests CODF can be used to explain some situations of forgetting.

Question 22

Outline Goodwin’s study from 1969.

(Supports state-dependent failure (SDF) as an explanation of forgetting)
(Evaluation of SDF)

Answer 22

Supports state-dependent failure (SDF) as an explanation of forgetting.

This is because they found that when people encoded information when they were drunk, they were more likely to recall it in the same state. E.g. hiding money under the influence of alcohol.

This suggests that SDF is a valid explanation of forgetting.

However, PPs under the influence on alcohol could have experienced short-term memory loss (a variable not considered).

Intoxicating participants is also unethical, as they are less aware e.g. cannot obtained informed consent and offer a right to withdrawal.

Question 22

Outline Overton’s study from 1972.

(Supports state-dependent failure (SDF) as an explanation of forgetting)
(Evaluation of SDF)

Answer 22

Supports state-dependent failure (SDF) as an explanation of forgetting.

This is because they got PPs to learn material when either drunk or sober, finding that recall was worse when PPs were in a different internal state at recall, than their internal state at coding.

This suggests that SDF is a valid explanation of forgetting.

However, PPs under the influence on alcohol could have experienced short-term memory loss (a variable not considered).

Intoxicating participants is also unethical, as they are less aware e.g. cannot obtained informed consent and offer a right to withdrawal.