Memory - Explanations Of Forgetting Flashcards
Interference
Tend to forget when two memories get confused with or become mixed with each other
The more similar information is, the more it is thought to lead to interference
Pro-active interference
When old memories affect new memories
Retro-active interference
When new memories affect old memories
McGeogh + McDonald
Participants learnt 10 words then learnt another list of words
The new list varied in similarity
Control group had no new list
Wanted to test retro-active interference
Forgetting the old list occurred most when the new list was similar to it
Limitations for interference
Use of artificial tasks to study memory
Lacks ecological validity
Supporting evidence for interference
Baddeley + Hitch:
Rugby players to try recall names of other rugby teams they’ve played during the season
The amount of time that had passed was not a key factor in their ability to recall
The number of games they had played was more significant in affecting their memory
Adds credibility
Overcoming interference
Tulving + Psotka:
Interference can be overcome by using cues
Gave participants 4 lists to remember after one another but recall got worse after every one
But when given the categories of each list, recall increased/improved
Interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to memories that are still in LTM
Encoding specificity principle
Tulving:
The cues available at recall need to be the same specific cues that were there at learning when first encoding the memory
Context dependent forgetting
At recall, we lack the external cues that were present at learning - room we were in, layout of notes
State dependent forgetting
At recall, we lack the internal cues that were present at learning
Physiological (alcohol, drugs)
Psychological (mood, emotions)
Supporting evidence for cues
Golden + Baddeley:
Scuba divers tested on recall of a list of words in 4 conditions and learnt under 4 conditions
In water out of water
Recall was best for conditions when the list was recalled in the same place the it was learnt - same cues available
Carter + Cassady
If taking an antihistamine drug (had drowsy effects on people) affected recall
4 conditions, learnt with/without antihistamine and recalled with/without antihistamine
Recalled best when they were in the same internal state at recall and learning
Retrieval failure happened when they were in different states
Lowe:
P’s told to remember a set of locations when drunk/when sober and recall tested when drunk/sober
Best recall when state of recall was same as the state of learning
Evaluating research of cues
Weaknesses:
The context or state you are in when recalling a memory has to be dramatically different to the context/state you encoded the information in
Unlike the day-to-day experiences of forgetting
Doesn’t account why we might forget in circumstances that aren’t so dramatic
Strengths:
Application to real life - revision, make effective use of memorable cues -mnemonics
Improve accuracy of eyewitness testimonies - use of cues in cognitive interview
