memory - forgetting Flashcards
what is forgetting?
when learnt information cannot be retrieved
what is forgetting in the STM thought to be due to?
due to an availability problem
(limited capacity and duration) causing information to be pushed out (displaced) or fade away (decay)
what can LTM forgetting be caused by?
-decay
-interference
-retrieval failure
what is interference?
when two memories conflict with eachother, leading to the forgetting of one or both pieces of information
when is interference more likely?
when information is similar
when is interference less likely to occur?
when there is a gap between the instances of learning
how can interference be overcome?
by using cues to trigger recall
what is proactive interference?
when an older memory interferes with a new one
how to remember proactive interference:
→
old goes to the new
what is retroactive interference?
when a newer memory interferes with an older one
how to remember retroactive interference:
<———
new goes to old
amaan has played doubles tennis for years but when his friend stops playing. he starts playing singles matches. After a few matches, he keeps hitting the ball into the tramlines, forgetting this isn’t permitted in a singles match.
(proactive or retroactive)
proactive
sumaiya gets a new bank card and memorises the PIN. When she wants to use her old card, she finds she has forgotten the PIN for that one.
(proactive or retroactive)
retroactive
two key studies into interference:
-keppel & underwood
-baddeley and hitch
when was the keppel and underwood study?
1962
aim of the keppel and underwood study:
to investigate the effect of proactive interference on LTM
method of keppel and underwood study:
-participants were presented with
meaningless three‐letter consonant trigrams at different intervals (3, 6, 9 seconds, etc)
-to prevent rehearsal the participants had to count backwards in threes before recalling
results of the keppel and underwood study:
participants typically remembered the trigrams that were presented first, regardless of the interval length
conclusion of keppel and underwood study:
-proactive interference occurred, as
memory for the earlier consonants (which had transferred to LTM)
interfered with the memory for new consonants, due to the similarity of
the information presented
when was the baddeley and hitch study?
to investigate retroactive interference in everyday memory
sample of baddeley and hitch study:
-rugby union players who had played every match in the season
-players who had missed some games due to injury
method of baddeley and hitch study:
-players were asked to recall the names of the teams they had played against earlier in the season
-the length of time from the start to the end of the season was the same for all
players
results of baddeley and hitch study:
the players who had played the most games forgot proportionately
more games than those who had played fewer games due to injury
conclusion of baddeley and hitch study:
-learning of new information (new team names) interfered withthe memory of old information (earlier team names).
-they were able to show that the probability of correct recall was not dependent on the passage of time (so not due to decay) but on the number of intervening games (interference)
who was the third study into interference done by and what did it investigate?
mcgeoch and mcdonald’s:
research into interference and similarity of information
when was mcgeoch and mcdonald’s study?
193q
method of mcgeoch and mcdonald’s study:
-they studied interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials
-participants had to learn a list of words until they could remember them 100%
accurately, they then learned a new list
-there were six groups of participants who had to learn different types of lists
the word in each group (mcgeoch and mcdonald)
1) synonyms
2 ) antonyms
3) words unrelated to the original ones.
4) nonsense Syllables
5) three-digit numbers.
6) no new list – these participants just rested
results of mcgeoch and mcdonald’s study:
recall was worse when lists were closest in similarity
conslusion of mcgeoch and mcdonald’s study:
this supports the idea of interference increasing with similar content, because the more similar the new material is to the previously learnt material, the greater the interference.l
strengths of interference:
-evidence from lab studies
-support from real life studies
-interference can be overcome using cues
strengths / ao3 -evidence from lab studies
P - evidence from lab studies consistently demonstrates
interference in memory
E - keppel and underwood gave pps nonsense trigrams to remember and
found that they remembered trigrams that were presented first
↳ this supports the theory of proactive interference, as memory for the
older trigrams interfered with the learning of the new trigrams
L - rhese findings can also be applied to real life – don’t learn similar types
of information at the same time
strengths / ao3 - support from real life studies
P - real life studies have supported the
interference explanation
E - baddeley and hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of
teams they had played so far inn that season week by week
↳ accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the match took place. more important was the number of games played in the meantime
L - this study shows that interference explanations can apply to at
least some everyday situations
strengths / ao3 - interference may be overcome
P - interference effects may be overcome using cues
E - tulving and Psotka gave participants five lists of 24 words each organised into 6 categories
↳ categories were not explicit but it was assumed they would be obvious when presented
↳ recall was about 70% for the first list but this fell as each additional list was
learned, presumably due to interference. however, when given a cued recall list
(told the names of the categories) recall rose again to about 70%
L - this suggests that interference may only be temporary and can be overcome when a cue is used to stop interference from preventing access to information
weaknesses of interference:
research lacks ecological validity
ao3 / weakness - research lacks ecological validity:
P - research into interference often
lacks ecological validity
E - the stimulus material used is often word lists or nonsense trigrams
which is not how we use our memory in everyday life
↳ the research usually uses similar information such as trigrams
which makes interference even more likely under experimental conditions
L - these findings used to support the theory do not represent everyday examples of interference and are limited in their application
what is a cue?
trigger of information that allows us to access a memory
two types of cues:
-external (environmental)
-internal (mood)
what is retrieval failure?
an explanation of forgetting based on the idea that we don’t have the necessary cues to access memory
information is in long term memory, but cannot be accessed
what are the two types of failure?
-context‐dependent failure
-state‐dependent failure
what did tulving propose about retrieval failure?
the encoding specificity principle:
memory is most effective when
information that was present at the time of coding is also present at
the time of retrieval
what is context-dependent forgetting/failure?
when environmental cues
present when information is learnt aren’t present at recall
what is state-dependent forgetting/failure?
when an individual’s emotional state is different when learning information and when trying to recall information
key studies into retrieval failure:
-godden and baddeley (1975)
-carter and cassaday (1998)
aim of godden and baddeley study:
to investigate the effect of contextual cues on recall
sample of godden and baddeley study:
18 participants (13 males and 5 females) from a university diving club
method of godden and baddeley study:
-18 participants divided into four conditions
-the experiment was a repeated
measures design with each participant taking part in all four conditions, over four separate days
-in all four conditions participants were presented with 38 words, which they heard twice
-after hearing all 38 words the participants were instructed to write all the words they could remember in any order
conditions of godden and baddeley study:
1) learning words on land and recalling on land
2) learning words on land and recalling underwater
3) learning underwater and recalling
underwater
4) learning underwater and recalling on land.@
results of godden and baddeley study:
the words learned underwater were better recalled underwater and words learned on and were better recalled on land
conclusion of godden and baddeley study:
-it is reasonable to conclude that the environmental cues (context) improve
recall
-divers performed worse because there was a mismatch between the cues available at learning and at recall
evaluations of godden and baddeley study:
-real life application
-small sample sizes
-order effects
aim of carter and cassaday study:
examined state‐dependent forgetting using anti‐histamine drugs
why were anti histamines used?
theycan make the individual feel drowsy, and therefore not as alert as they would
normally be, providing a comparison to everyday non‐drug‐induced behaviour
method of state-dependent forgetting:
-participants were tasked with learning a list of words and excerpts from a text and then asked to recall the information at a later point
-there were four conditions in their experiment
four conditions of carter and cassaday study:
1) learn the words/text after taking anti‐histamine and recall after taking anti‐histamine
2) learn the words/text without anti‐histamine and recall without anti‐histamine
3) learn the words/text after talking anti‐histamine and recall without anti‐histamines
4) learn without taking antihistamine, recall with antihistamine
results of carter and cassaday study:
in the conditions where the learning and recalling state matched memory was improved
conclusion of carter and cassaday study:
internal state cues improve recall
strengths of retrieval failure:
-everyday applications
-further research support for state dependent forgetting
ao3 / strength - further research support for the effect of state‐dependent retrieval failure
P - further research support for the effect of state‐dependent retrieval
failure
E - male volunteers were asked to remember lists of words when they were either drunk or sober. the participants were then asked to recall the words 24 hours later, in either a drunk or sober state
L - results show that words learned when drunk were better recalled when
drunk, and words learnt when sober were better recalled when sober.
↳ these results support the idea of state‐dependent retrieval failure
ao3 / strength - successful everyday applications
P - successful everyday applications
E - people often report these experiences: they were upstairs and went downstairs to get an item but forgot what they came downstairs for, when they go back upstairs, they remember again
↳ the application is that when we have trouble remembering something it is
probably worth making the effort to revisit the environment in which you first
experienced it
L - useful applications of research into retrieval failure
weaknesses of retrieval failure
-context effects are not very strong in
real life
-context effects only occur when memory is tested in certain ways
ao3 / criticism - context effects are not very strong in real life
P - context effects are not very strong in
real life
E - baddeley argued that different contexts have to be very different
indeed before an effect is seen (e.g. on land verses underwater)
↳ learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because the environments are not different enough
L - the real life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual may not actually explain much forgetting
ao3 / criticism - context effects only occur when memory is tested in certain ways
P - context effects only occurs when memory is tested in certain ways
E - godden and baddeley replicated their underwater experiment
using a recognition test instead of recall
↳ there was no context dependent effect, performance was the same in all four conditions
L - limits retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting because
the presence or absence of cues only affect memory when you test recall rather than recognition
