memory- explanations of forgetting

Question 1

evaluation: interference
strength- real world interference (3)

Answer 1

-researchers asked rugby players to recall names of teams they’d played against over 1 season
-the more games played, the worse the recall- retroactive interference
-strong study support- natural experiment with a naturally occurring IV, so has high ecological validity unlike other lab studies supporting interference

Question 2

evaluation: interference
strength- research support (2)

Answer 2

-McGeoch and McDonald found similar material= more forgetting (talk about AO1)
-strong support as its a lab study with controlled variables so cause and effect can be established- high internal validity (IV (interference) caused the DV(forgetting) )

Question 3

evaluation: interference
strength- research support COUNTERPOINT (limitation) (2)

Answer 3

-artificial stimuli are unrepresentative of real world memory tasks- study lacks mundane realism and cant be generalised
-interference in more likely due to controlled variables

Question 4

evaluation: interference
limitation- time allowed between learning (4)

Answer 4

-time allowed between learning=methodological issue
-there are time differences in real life experiences and lab settings of time taken to remember info
-short time differences are only practical for research purposes but not reflective of real life- learning can take longer
-conclusions of research may not be generalisable to wider population- the role of interference can be exaggerated

Question 5

evaluation: retrieval failure due to lack of cues
strength- real world application (4)

Answer 5

-retrieval cues help overcome some forgetting in real life
-when we retrace out steps to find things we lost, we remember what we did in each place
-has been developed by police in cognitive interviews- witnesses recall events leading up to the crime
-so the research is useful as it has aided in real life techniques to support memory retrieval

Question 6

evaluation: retrieval failure due to lack of cues
strength- research support- lab studies (2)

Answer 6

-godden and baddeley (AO1)
-godden and baddeley had high internal validity due to control over variables so can establish cause and effect

Question 7

evaluation: retrieval failure due to lack of cues
strength- research support- lab studies COUNTERPOINT (limitation)

Answer 7

-context effects arent very strong in everyday life
-different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen (its hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater)
-retrieval failure due to lack of cues may not explain everyday forgetting

Question 8

evaluation: retrieval failure due to lack of cues
limitation- recall vs recognition (5)

Answer 8

-context effects may depend on the type of memory tested
-Godden and baddeley replicated their experiment
-they used a recognition test instead of recall (p’s said if they recognised a word)
-with recognition test there was no context-dependent effect- performance was the same in all conditions
-retrieval failure= limited explanation- only applies when recalling info rather than recognising info