explanations of forgetting Flashcards
two explanations of forgetting
interference theory + retrieval failure
what is interference theory
Suggests that forgetting is caused by competing memories either because existing memories interfere with the learning of new information (Proactive interference) or because new information interferes with previously learnt information (Retroactive interference)
what is retrieval failure
when information cannot be received due to insufficient cues to trigger the memory
two types of interference are…
proactive + retrocative
what is proactive interference
Went old memories disrupting replaced new memories that have been made.
what is retroactive interference
When new memories disrupt and replace old memories
Evidence to support proactive interference
KEPPEL + UNDERWOOD: pts presented w/ meaningless consonant trigrams at different intervals (3, 6, 9 s…) To prevent rehearsal pts had to count backwards in 3’s before recalling.
FOUND: pts typically remembered the trigrams that were presented first, irrespective of the interval length. TS idea of proactive interference, as memory for the earlier consonants (which had transferred to LTM) interfered w/ memory for new consonants, due to the similarity of the information presented.
evidence to support retroactive interference
BADDELEY + HITCH: Asked rugby union players who played every match in the season + players who had missed some games due to injury, to recall the names of the teams they had played against earlier in the season (length of time from the start to the end of the season was the same for all)
FOUND: pts played the most games forgot proportionately more games than those who played fewer games. B+H concluded TIB of retroactive inference, as the learning of new information (new team names) interfered with the memory of old information (earlier team names).
gender bias→ all‐male sample of rugby players + then applied their findings outside of this target population to incl. f. BETA-BIAS, researchers minimise differences between f + m + assume that research carried out on one gender may be universally applied to the other.
Interference theory evaluation
Artificial + lack ecological validity; Most research examining interference is carried out in a laboratory, e.g, KEPPEL + UNDERWOOD, used particularly meaningless stimuli (trigram). ∴ findings do not represent everyday examples of interference + are limited in their application to everyday human memory.
Interference research provides an insight into 1 type of forgetting, but only explains a specific type of forgetting – memory for similar information. E.g, B+H show retro interference in rugby players trying to recall team names from earlier in the season + K+U show pro interference when trying to learn trigrams. Both highlight interference effects of very similar information + ∴ this research is limited in its real world application as it is unable to explain forgetting in other situations.
No neurological evidence → lacks empiricism
State two types of cue dependent forgetting
Context dependent
States dependent
What is state dependent forgetting
Forgetting when recall occurs in the different psychological / physiological state to learning
What is context dependent forgetting
Forgetting when the environmental cues are missing
Context dependent forgetting AO3
BADDELEY + GODDEN: 18 pts (m + f) from uni diving club, divided into 4 conditions: 1) learn on land + recall on land; 2) learn on land + recall underwater; 3) learn underwater + recall underwater; and 4) learn underwater + recall on land.
→ repeated measures design found: words learned underwater were better recalled underwater + words learned on land were better recalled on land. TS CDF bc it shows environmental cues (context) improve recall.
BUT pts took part in the exp at diff times of day + at different diving locations. ∴ each pts would have experienced diff contextual cues, which may have affected their mem. ∴ unable to conclude whether results of G+B is due to the on land/underwater contextual cues, or another contextual cue provided by the different time of day or diving location.
- RMD: as each pts took part in all conditions, possible demand characteristics // order effects. By the 4th trial pts may have demonstrated practice effects where recall improved bc of completing the experiment multiple times, or even fatigue effects where their results declined as a result of boredom. ∴ independent measures would be. BUT, need more pts, who are trained divers.
- Small sample →only 18 divers
- Lacks eco validity →the context = extreme + provides little insight into context‐dependent forgetting in everyday life.
GOODWIN: asked male volunteers to remember lists of words when either drunk // sober. Pts were then asked to recall the words 24 hrs later, in either a drunk // sober state. FOUND: support G+B, as words learned drunk better recalled drunk, + words learnt sober better recalled sober. This further supports idea of state‐dependent retrieval
State dependant forgetting AO3
CARTER + CASSADAY: when participants given light sedative when learning a prose, recall was significantly worse when asked to recall the prose under “normal conditions’ compared to recall in a sedative state. TS SDF as when physiological/emotional cues that are present at the time of encoding are missing at the time of retrieval, SDF is likely to occur.
Retrieval failure general evaluation
Lack of cause + effect w/ retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting. NAIRNE criticised research in this area suggesting that only a correlation between cues present at the time of encoding + cues present at the time of later retrieval. He further suggests the cues present do not in themselves cause the retrieval failure (or success), but are simply associated with it. TS that cue‐dependent (context + state) explanations of forgetting due to retrieval failure, + in fact circular in nature rather than linear + psychologists are unable to conclude whether a lack of cues actually causes retrieval failure.
