forgetting

Question 1

what is interference

Answer 1

one memory disturbs the ability to recall another. this might result in forgetting or ditorting one or the other or both. this is moe likely to happen if memories are similar

Question 2

what is proactive interference

Answer 2

new information is being interfered with
- previously learnt info interferes with new info
- e.g. difficulties learning your new mobile number instead you keep remembering your old

Question 3

what is retroactive interference

Answer 3

old info being interfered with
- new memory interferes with old one
- e.g. you have difficulties remembering the names of the students in your maths group last year because you learnt the names of your new maths group this year

Question 4

case study: postman (1960)

Answer 4

aim: to investigate how retroactive interference affects learning
- lab experiment
- participants split into 2 groups
- both had to remember a list of paired words- e.g. cat-tree, book-tractor
- experimental group also had to learn another list of words where the second paired words were different e.g. cat- glass, book- revolver
- control group were not given a second list. all participants were asked to recall the words on the first list

Question 5

results of postman

Answer 5

• recall of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental group because they were not given a second word paired list which meant no interference
• suggests learning items in the second list is interfered with participants ability to recall the list. this is an example of retroactive interference as new info interfered with old info

Question 6

baddely and hitch- a real life hitch

Answer 6

• asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they had played against earlier in the season
• for various reasons including injuries and suspensions most players they interviewed had missed some games, so for one player the last game might have been the last week, while for another it was 2 months ago

Question 7

results of baddely and hitch

Answer 7

• found that recall for the last game was equally good whether that game was played some time ago or that week
• shows incorrect recall was not due to decay (the passage of time) but was related to the number of intervening games
• demonstrates interference is a reason for forgetting in our everday life

Question 8

what are the issues with this theory

Answer 8

• issues of validity- evidence that interference can explain forgetting frequently comes from artificial lab experiments using artificial tasks, so interference may not occur to the same extent in more real life settings and scenarios, so challenging interference as an explanation of forgetting
• participants do not have to remember the stimuli used in an experiment than they have to remember things which are important to their lives
• use artificial material which are meaningless to the participants so they do not represent everyday situations when we have to remember things which have meaning to us

Question 9

strengths

Answer 9

in postman, extraneous variables can be controlled
these experiments can be replicated so reliabliity can be tested

Question 10

retreival failure

Answer 10

info is stored in LTM but cannot be accessed
forgetting due to this theory is due to lack of cues

Question 11

what is external context

Answer 11

in the environment e.g. smell, place etc

Question 12

what is internal state

Answer 12

inside of us, e.g. physical, emotional, mood, drunk etc

Question 13

context dependent forgetting- godden and baddely

Answer 13

investigated effect of environment on recall. took place in scotland
- 18 divers from diving club asked to learn lists of 36 unrelated words of two or three syllables
- 4 conditions:
- learn on beach, recall on beach
- learn on beach recall under water
- learn under water, recall on beach
- learn under water, recall under water

Question 14

results of godden and baddely

Answer 14

learnt on the beach-recalled on the beach= 13.5
learnt on beach recalled under water= 8.6
learnt under water recalled on beach= 8.5
learnt underwater recalled underwater= 11.4

results show the context acted as a cue to recall as participants recalled moer words when they learnt and recalled words in the same environment than when tehy learnt and recalled words in different environments

Question 15

evalualtion of godden and baddely

Answer 15

• limited ecological validity, environment was familiar to the divers but task was artificial as we are not usually asked to recall a list of words
• groups that had to learn and recall in different environments were disrupted (had to change environment) whereas those that learnt and recalled in the same environment werent
• was a controlled experiment so can be replicated so reliability can be tested
• it took place in scotland which means extraneous variables such as the weather could have made the conditions of the water bad, making it difficult to recall

Question 16

state dependent forgetting- goodwin et al

Answer 16

• 48 male medical students participated on day 1 in a training session and on day 2 in a testing
• randomly assigned to 4 groups:
• 1= ss - sober on both days
• 2= aa - was intoxicated on both days
• 3= as - intoxicated on day 1 and sober on day 2
• 4= sa - sober on day 1 and intoxicated on day 2
• intoxicated group had 111mg alcohol in their blood- all showed signs of intoxicaition
• had to perform 4 tests: avoidance task, verbal rote learning task, word association test, picture recognition task

Question 17

results of goodwin et al

Answer 17

• more errors made on day 2 in the as and sa condition than in the ss and aa conditions, however this is not the case for the picture recognition tests. ss participants performed best in all tasks
• supports the state dependent memory theory as teh performeance was best in the participants who were sober or intoxicaated on both days

Question 18

evaluation of goodwin et al

Answer 18

• limited ecological validity because tasks performed by participants were artifical therfore their performance may not reflect teh way they would perform on tasks in everyday life
• participants know they were taking part in a study so might have changed their behaviour (demand characteristics) to fit in with aims
• was controlled so can be replicated
• used as a strategy to improve ewt when the witnesses are asked to describe their mood/ emotional state when the incident they had witnessed took place