Memory Part 2 Flashcards
What are the parts made up of the interference theory (Explanations for forgetting: Interference )
Proactive interference (PI) Retroactive interference (RI)
Describe Retroactive interference (Explanations for forgetting: Interference )
- Georg Muller and his student were the first to identify retroactive interference(RI) effects
- Gave participants a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 minutes, then after retention interval they asked participants to recall the lists
- Performance was less good if participants had been given intervening tasks between initial learning and recall – describing a landscape
- intervening task produced RI because the later task – describing pictures – interfered with what they had originally learned
Describe Proactive interference (Explanations for forgetting: Interference )
- Benton Underwood 1957 – he showed that proactive interference (PI) could be equally significant, analysed findings from a number of studies and concluded that when participants have to learn a series of word lists they do not learn the words on the lists later on in the sequence than the words encountered earlier on
- Overall Underwood found, if participants remembered 10 or more lists than after 24 hours they remembered about 20% of what they learned, if they learned one list recall was over 70%
what are the similarity of test materials (Explanations for forgetting: Interference )
- McGeoch and McDonald 1931 – experimented with the effect of similarity of materials
- Gave participants a list of 10 adjectives once these were learned then there was a resting interval of 10 minutes in which they learned list B followed by recall
- If list B was a list of synonyms of list A recall was poor (12%) if list B was nonsense syllabus this had less effect (26%), if list B was numbers than this had the least effect of (37%) recall
- This showed that interference is strongest the more similar the items are, only interference can explain these differences rather than decay
What was Baddeley and Hitches real world study (Explanations for forgetting: Interference )
- Baddeley and Hitch 1997 – investigated interference effects in rugby players recalling the names of the teams they had played over a rugby season – some were in all the games and others had missed games because of injury – time interval was the same for all players but the number of intervening games was different for each player because of missed games
What were the findings of Baddeley and Hitches real world study (Explanations for forgetting: Interference )
- If decay theory was correct then the players should recall a similar percentage of games played because time alone should be the cause of forgetting
- If interference theory is correct than those players who played the most games should forget proportionately, more because of interference – this is what Baddeley and Hitch found which demonstrated the effect of interference in everyday life
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: interference: Research is quite artificial
- Evidence that supports PI and RI, but most of the experiments are lab based and often use artificial and contrived equipment therefore does not relate to everyday memory
- Low ecological validity – participants may lack motivation to remember the lists which allows interference to have more of an effect
- On the other hand interference has been observed in everyday situations
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: interference: Interference only explains some situations of forgetting
- Interference effects do not occur often
- Special conditions are required for interference to lead to forgetting so therefore it is relatively unimportant
- Anderson 2000 concluded that interference plays a role in forgetting but how much is plays a role is unclear
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: interference: Accessibility versus availability
- Researchers question whether interference effects actually cause a memory to disappear or are just temporary
- Ceraso 1967 – found that if memory was tested after 24 hours there was spontaneous recovery whereas recall was the same, so interference occurs because memories are temporarily not accessible rather than lost
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: interference: Real-World application to advertising
- Danaher et al 2008 – found that both recall and recognition of an advertisers message were impaired when participants were exposed to two advertisements for competing brands within a week – serious problem considering the amount of money advertisers spend only to have the effect dulled by interference
- Suggest that one strategy might be to enhance the memory trace by running multiple exposures to advert in one day rather than spread out over a week which reduces interference
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: interference: Individual differences
- Evidence that some people are less affected by PI than others
- Kane and Engle 2000 – demonstrated that individuals with a greater working memory span were less susceptible to PI than those with a low span
- Having a greater working memory span meant having greater resources to consciously control processing and counteract the effects of PI
What is forgetting in the LTM mainly due to?
- forgetting LTM is mainly due to retrieval failure, this is the failure to find an item of information as you have insufficient cues
Describe the encoding specificity principle
- Endel Tulving and Donald Thomson 1973, proposed that memory is most effective if information present at time of the encoding is also available at time of retrieval
- Cue doesn’t have to be right but the closer to the original the more useful it is
Describe the Tulving and Pearlstone 1966 study which proved encoding specificity principle
- Tulving and Pearlstone 1966 – demonstrated the value of retrieval cues in a study where participants had to learn 48 words belonging to 12 categories, each word was presented as a category and word, there were two different recall conditions, participants had to either recall as many words as they could or they were given cues in the form of the category names
- In recall condition 40% of the words were recalled on average whereas in the cued recall condition participants recalled 60% of the words
- Evidence of cues that have been explicitly or implicitly encoded, at the time of learning and have a meaningful link to the learning material
What is another type of cue that is not related to the learning material in any type of way
remembering where we were, or how we felt, information encoded to varying degrees along with material learned – sometimes the reminder that a particular place or mood can act as a trigger or cue to help access a memory
What is context dependant forgetting
this is when familiar things act as cues and allow us to retrieve memories from out LTM
Describe Ethel Abernethy 1940s study to prove context-dependent forgetting
– arranged for a group of students to be tested before a certain course began, they were then tested each week, some in there teaching room by their instructor whereas others were tested by a different instructor, others were tested in a different room by there usual instructor or by a different one
- Four different experimental conditions in this study those tested by the same instructor in the same room performed best – similar things acted as memory cues
Describe the Godden and Baddeley 1975 study to prove context dependent forgetting
researchers recruited scuba divers as participants and arranged for them to learn a set of words either on land or underwater, therefore they were tested on land or underwater for experimental conditions, showed the highest recall occurred when the initial context matched the recall of the environment
What is state-dependent forgetting
The mental state you are in at the time of learning can act as a cue
Describe state dependent forgetting Godwin et al 1969 study
asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when either they were drunk or sober
- Participants were asked to recall the lists after 24 hours when some were sober but others had to get drunk again
- Recall suggested that the words learnt in the same state provided the highest recall
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure: Real world application
- use it to improve recall
- Abernethy’s research suggests that you should revise in the room where you take the exam, may be unrealistic but you can use your imagination
- Smith 1979 - showed that just thinking of the room where you did the original learning was just as effective as doing the test in the same room
Evaluation of explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure: Retrieval cues do not always work
- really not that effective to improve exam performance
- the information that you are learning is related to a lot more than just cues therefore it does not work
- learning complex associations which are less easily triggered by cues - outshining hypothesis - a cues effectiveness if reduced by the presence of better cues
- Smith and Vela 2001 - context effects are largely eliminated when learning meaningful material