Explanations of Forgetting Flashcards
Define Forgetting
Losing the ability to recall a memory
Define Interference
Where one memory disrupts the ability to recall another.
Retroactive Interference Define
When newly learned information interferes with and impedes the recall of previously learned information.
Example:
An example would be calling your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend by your new boyfriend/girlfriend’s name. The new name retroactively interferes with the old one, which is clearly problematic for recall.
Proactive Interference Define
The tendency of previously learned material to hinder subsequent learning.
Example:
occur with telephone numbers. When trying to recall a new phone number, the old phone number you have previously had for years could proactively interfere with the recall, to the point when it is very difficult to remember the new number.
Muller - Retroactive Interference Aim
To Test Retroactive Interference
Muller - Retroactive Interference Methods
Gave participants a list of syllables to learn for 6 minutes and had an intervening task during it.
Muller - Retroactive Interference Results
Found performances was less good when asked to do the task
Muller - Retroactive Interference Conclusion
Identified retroactive interference as a reason for forgetting
Muller - Retroactive Interference A P F C
To Test Retroactive Interference
Gave participants a list of syllables to learn for 6 minutes and had an intervening task during it.
Found performances was less good when asked to do the task
Identified retroactive interference as a reason for forgetting
Underwood - Proactive Interference Aim
Proactive interference could be easily significant
Underwood - Proactive Interference Methods
Asked participants to learn several word lists and recall them after 24 hours, looked at someone else’s study of secondary data to make meta-data
Underwood - Proactive Interference Result
The first list was recalled 70% efficient while later ones were only 20%
Underwood - Proactive Interference Conclusion
Saw proactive interference as a significant reason for forgetting.
Underwood - Proactive Interference A P F C
Proactive interference could be easily significant
Asked participants to learn several word lists and recall them after 24 hours, looked at someone else’s study of secondary data to make meta-data
The first list was recalled 70% efficient while later ones were only 20%
Saw proactive interference as a significant reason for forgetting.
Baddeley and Hitch: Into Interference Theory - Aim
Investigate interference effects in a everyday setting
Baddeley and Hitch: Into Interference Theory - Method
They asked rugby players to recall the names of teams recently played. Injuries and suspensions meant that most players they interviewed had missed some games, so for one player the last game might have been last week, while for another it was two months ago.
Baddeley and Hitch: Into Interference Theory - Results
They were able to show that the probability of correct recall was not dependent on the passage of time, as decay theory would predict, but on the number of intervening games. Recall for the last games was equally good whether that game played some time ago or last week.
Baddeley and Hitch: Into Interference Theory - Conclusion
Demonstrating the effects of interference in everyday life providing support for proactive and retroactive interference.
Baddeley and Hitch: Into Interference Theory - A P F C
Investigate interference effects in a everyday setting
They asked rugby players to recall the names of teams recently played. Injuries and suspensions meant that most players they interviewed had missed some games, so for one player the last game might have been last week, while for another it was two months ago.
They were able to show that the probability of correct recall was not dependent on the passage of time, as decay theory would predict, but on the number of intervening games. Recall for the last games was equally good whether that game played some time ago or last week.
Demonstrating the effects of interference in everyday life providing support for proactive and retroactive interference.
Evaluation of Interference Theory
Although proactive and retroactive interference are reliable and robust effects, there are a number of problems with interference theory as an explanation of forgetting.
First, interference theory tells us little about the cogntiive processes involved in forgetting. Secondly, the majority of research into the role of interference in forgetting has been carried out in a laboratory using lists of words, a situation which is unlikely to occur in every day life. As a result it may not be possible to generalise from the findings.
Define Retrieval Failure
Occurs due to an absence of cues. Based on forgetting and not been able to recall a memory
Define Cues
Are things that serve as a reminder. Meaningful link to the person and the type of cue.
Define External / Context Cues
Related to the environment, If the environment is the same you will remember better. However if your environment is different you will remember less significantly
Define Internal/ State Cues
To do with the persons mental state. If you happy youre more likely able to retrieve It better.
What helps information being Recalled
Information present when learning a new memory should be present when retrieving a memory otherwise it wont be recalled.
Tulving & Pearlstone -
Retrieval Failure : Aim
To demonstrate the value of retrieval cues.
Tulving & Pearlstone -
Retrieval Failure : Methods
Asked participants to learn a list of words belonging to different categories, for example names of animals, clothing and sports.
Participants were then asked to recall the words.
Tulving & Pearlstone -
Retrieval Failure : Results
Those who were given the category names recalled substantially more words than those who were not.
In free recall conditions, 40% of the words were recalled on average.
Whereas in cued-recall 60% of the words were recalled on average
Tulving &; Pearlstone -
Retrieval Failure : Conclusion
The categories provided a context and naming the categories provided retrieval cues.
Evidence of cues using explicitly or implicitly encoded can act as a certain trigger to cue a memory.
Tulving & Pearlstone -
Retrieval Failure : A P F C
To demonstrate the value of retrieval cues.
Asked participants to learn a list of words belonging to different categories, for example names of animals, clothing and sports.
Participants were then asked to recall the words.
Those who were given the category names recalled substantially more words than those who were not.
In free recall conditions, 40% of the words were recalled on average.
Whereas in cued-recall 60% of the words were recalled on average
The categories provided a context and naming the categories provided retrieval cues.
Evidence of cues using explicitly or implicitly encoded can act as a certain trigger to cue a memory.
Strength of Retrieval Failure
Although context related cues appear not to have a very strong effect on forgetting. Baddeley still suggests they are worth paying attention to. For instance, we have probably all had the following experience. You walk into a room and suddenly forget why you walked in there in the first place. When we are having trouble remembering something, it is probably worth making the effort to try and recall the environment in which you learned it first. This is in fact a basic principle of the cognitive interview (a method of getting eyewitnesses to crimes to recall more information. It is a strength because being able to apply an explanation for forgetting to real life gives us the opportunity to help people to remember things more accurately. For example, advice based on these explanations could help people to perform better in exams, to avoid age-related memory losses, and help the police catch more criminals.
Weakness of Retrieval Failure
There is a danger that the encoding specificity principle does not explain anything. It makes an assumption that a cue is stored at the same time as a memory if the memory is successfully recalled later on. But it is impossible to test this assumption. This means it is impossible to show that the Encoding Specificity Principle (ES)P is false. This is a weakness because such circular arguments are not scientific.
