Section 2 : Memory - Explanations for Forgetting Flashcards
What is forgetting
When learnt information can’t retrieved
interference
forgetting because one memory blocks another - causing both memories to be distored or forgotten
mainly an explanation for forgetting in LTM
Why is some information the STM forgotten
The information is no longer available because of the limited capacity or duration of STM. Or it may be displaced (pushed out) of decayed (faded away)
Why does LTM forget
- decaying (availability problem)
- information is hard to retrieve (accessibility problem)
- information is confused (interference problem)
What are the two types of interference
- Retroactive Interference
- Proactive interference
What is retroactive interference
forgetting occurs
new memories
disrupt recall of
older memories alrelady stored
degree of forgetting is greater when memories are similar
What is proactive interference
forgetting occurs when
older memories (already stored)
disrupt recall of
newer memories
degree of forgetting is greater when memories are similar
Acronym Proactive vs retro active
Eg of both
A great way to remember the difference between proactive and retroactive interference in A-Level Psychology is to use the acronym PORN:
Proactive = Old memories interfere with new ones
Retroactive = New memories interfere with old ones
Example to reinforce it:
Proactive interference: You keep using your old phone number instead of your new one.
Retroactive interference: You learn a new password, and now you can’t remember your old one.
Interference
Research of effects of similarity
McGeoch and McDonald
Procedure:
- Studied RI
- Varied levels of similarity between two materials
- PTs learn list 10 words, until 100% accuracy
- Then learnt new list
- 6 groups (synonyms, antonyms, unrelated words, numbers, control so same list etc)
Findings:
-Synonyms, worst recall of original
Conclude
-Interference is strongest when words are similar
Interference
Explain Effects of similarity
- PI - Old memories interfere with new ones
- RI - New memories interfere with old ones
Explanations for forgetting
Interference Evaluation
Real world application
Strength
Real-World Interference
Baddeley & Hitch (1977): Rugby players recalled teams they played against. Players who played more games (more interference) had poorer recall.
Strength: Shows interference occurs in real-life, increasing validity of the theory.
Counterpoint: Interference is uncommon in everyday life because memories must be very similar to interfere. More likely in lab studies than real-world settings. Retrieval failure (lack of cues) may explain forgetting better.
Explanations for forgetting
Interference Evaluation
Interference and Cues
Weakness
Interference and Cues
Tulving & Psotka (1971): Word lists in categories; recall worsened with more lists (proactive interference).
Cued recall test: Given category names → recall improved to 70%.
Conclusion: Interference is a temporary loss of access, not memory loss.
Explanations for forgetting
Interference Evaluation
Support from Drug Studies
Strength
Support from Drug Studies
Coenen & Luijtelaar (1997): Diazepam (drug) taken before learning → later recall improved.
Conclusion: Drug prevented new memories from interfering with old ones (retroactive facilitation).
Supports interference theory – reducing interference reduces forgetting.
Explanations for forgetting
Interference Evaluation
Weakness
Validity Issues
Lab studies: High control but use artificial materials (e.g., word lists).
Low ecological validity: In real life, recall happens much later (e.g., exams).
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
ESP
Retrieval Failure Due to Absence of Cues
Forgetting occurs when cues are unavailable at recall.
Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) (Tulving): Memory is better when cues is present at encoding and present at retrieval.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Types of Forgetting Due to Cues
Types of Forgetting Due to Cues
Context-Dependent Forgetting (External cues, e.g., environment).
State-Dependent Forgetting (Internal cues, e.g., mood, intoxication).
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Research on Context-Dependent Forgetting
Research on Context-Dependent Forgetting
Godden & Baddeley (1975): Deep-sea divers learned words on land or underwater, then recalled in same or different conditions.
Same context = better recall
Different context = worse recall → Retrieval failure due to absence of environmental cues.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Research on State-Dependent Forgetting
Research on State-Dependent Forgetting
Carter & Cassaday (1998): Antihistamines induced a drowsy state in participants learning and recalling words.
Same internal state = better recall
Different internal state = worse recall → Retrieval failure due to mismatch in internal cues.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Evalutation
Real-World Application
Real-World Application
A major strength of retrieval failure theory is its practical application in improving memory.
Baddeley (1997) suggests that although context cues may not have a huge effect, they are still worth considering when learning.
Example: Mental reinstatement – If you cannot be in the same room as an exam when revising, imagining yourself in the exam setting may help retrieval.
This shows that research on retrieval failure has real-world value and can be applied to improve memory in practical settings.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Evalutation
Research Support
Research Support
A wide range of studies support retrieval failure, including Godden & Baddeley (1975) (context-dependent forgetting) and Carter & Cassaday (1998) (state-dependent forgetting).
Eysenck & Keane (2010) argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from long-term memory (LTM).
These studies demonstrate that retrieval failure occurs in both laboratory and real-world situations, strengthening the validity of the explanation.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Evalutation
Weak Context Effects
Weak Context Effects
Baddeley (1997) criticizes retrieval failure theory, arguing that context effects are not very strong in real life.
In studies like Godden & Baddeley (1975), the context differences were extreme (land vs. underwater), which rarely occurs in everyday forgetting.
In contrast, simply learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to cause significant forgetting because environments do not differ enough in daily life.
This suggests that the role of context cues in forgetting may be overstated, as they do not fully explain everyday memory failures.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Evalutation
Recall vs recognition
Recall vs. Recognition
A key limitation is that context-dependent effects depend on the type of memory being tested.
Godden & Baddeley (1980) conducted a follow-up study where deep-sea divers recognized words from a list rather than recalling them.
Findings: There was no context-dependent effect – performance was the same in all four conditions, regardless of context match or mismatch.
This suggests that retrieval failure only applies to recall-based forgetting, not recognition-based memory, limiting its explanatory power.
Explanations for forgetting
Retrieval failure
Evalutation
Extra - ESP
The Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) states that forgetting occurs when there is a mismatch between encoding and retrieval cues.
However, the ESP is difficult to independently test because it is based on circular reasoning:
If a cue helps recall, we assume it was encoded.
If a cue does not help recall, we assume it wasn’t encoded in the first plac
