forgetting

Question 1

2 types of interference

Answer 1

retroactive and proactive

Question 2

types of retrieval failure

Answer 2

context dependant and state dependant

Question 3

proactive interference definition

Answer 3

when previously learnt info affects new info that your trying to store

Question 4

retroactive interference definition

Answer 4

when new info affects with previously learnt info that your trying to store

Question 5

Interference theory strength

Answer 5

research support by Baddeley and Hitch who examined rugby players who played every match and then some who missed games due to injuries - players were asked to recall names of teams they had played against earlier in the season - it was found that those who had played the most games forgot proportionally more than those who had played fewer - supports theory of retroactive as learning new teams affected memory of old teams

Question 6

Interference theory weaknesses

Answer 6

-only explains a specific type of forgetting (memory for similar info), although there is research support by Baddeley and Hitch there p’s were recalling rugby teams which is all similar info so the research is limited as it fails to explain forgetting when info isn’t similar
-criticised for being artificial and lacking eco validity, most research is in a lab e.g Keppel and Underwood, don’t explain everyday examples for interference and are limited in real-life application

Question 7

retroactive interference research by McGeoch and McDonald - method and results

Answer 7

p’s had to learn a list of 10 new words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy, they then had to learn a new list and had 6 groups of p’s learning different lists
Group 1 = synonyms
Group 2 = antonyms
Group 3 = words unrelated
Group 4 = consonant syllables
Group 5 = three-digit numbers
Group 6 = no new list
-most similar material (synonyms) produced worst recall showing affect of interference

Question 8

proactive interference research by Keppel and Underwood - method, results and conclusion

Answer 8

p’s were asked to recall consonant trigrams after varying intervals during which they counted back in 3’s - they found forgetting increased with longer intervals and there was little to no forgetting of trigrams at the start of the procedure - in conclusion the earlier memory for trigrams had entered LTM and was interfering with recall of later trigrams

Question 9

evaluations of research evidence into interference

Answer 9

+much of evidence is lab based so its controlled, minimised EV’s so it’s a reliable experiment
-research is from lab-based studies using tasks that don’t resemble everyday situations so its difficult to draw firm conclusions from such studies as its not clear to the extent to which forgetting is due to interference or something else
-interference only truly explains forgetting when info is similar and this doesnt often happen in real life so lacks mundane realism and eco validity

Question 10

what does cue dependant forgetting / retrieval failure due to absence of cues mean

Answer 10

info is still in LTRM but can’t be accessed because the cues that were encoded with the memory are not available to help us retrieve - failure to retrieve the prompts that trigger recall

Question 11

Tulving and Thompsons definition of encoding specificity principle

Answer 11

human memories are more easily retrieved if conditions at the time of retrieval are similar to those in existence at the time the memory was stored

Question 12

context-dependant forgetting definition and example

Answer 12

external-retrieval cues within the environment fail to trigger recall because they’re dissimilar to when the info was coded
e.g learning in one classroom and doing a test for it in another

Question 13

context dependent forgetting research - Abernathy - results and conclusion

Answer 13

p’s had greater recall of learnt info when tested in a familiar room with a familiar teacher compared to p’s who were tested in an unfamiliar room
- in conclusion it supports cdf as it clearly shows the environment of coding and retrieval have caused retrieval failure

Question 14

state-dependent forgetting definition and example

Answer 14

internal retrieval cues fail to trigger recall because our state of mind is different to when the info was coded
e.g trying to recall happy memories when sad

Question 15

state dependent forgetting research - Carter and Cassaday - method and results

Answer 15

gave anti-histamine drugs to p’s which had a mild sedative effect making the p’s slightly drowsy which creates an internal physiological state different from the normal state and p’s had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall it
4 conditions:
learn on drug recall when on it
learn on drug recall when off it
learn not on drug recall when on
learn not on drug recall when not on
-in conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall the performance on memory was significantly worse

Question 16

strengths for retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting

Answer 16

-many psychologists view retrieval as the main reason for forgetting in LTM as of the amount of research evidence supporting the importance of cues and how they’re used to trigger memory
-been valuable and important practical applications from the knowledge gained about retrieval failure e.g use of police reconstructions of unsolved crimes can jog witnesses memory

Question 17

weaknesses for retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting

Answer 17

-many studies to support retrieval failure are lab-based and not like everyday tasks so lacks mundane realism and can’t be generalised to everyday life (counterpoint = high control)
-Baddeley argues context effects art very strong in real life, the contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen e.g learning in one room and recalling in another I unlikely to result in forgetting as they arnt different enough = real life applications don’t explain much forgetting