Explanations For Forgetting Flashcards
(28 cards)
Explanations for forgetting
There are many explanations for why we forget information. Once information has reached the LTM it is thought to be permanent, so any forgetting of information from LTM is most likely because we can’t get access to them even though they are available. The two main explanations for forgetting in LTM are interference and retrieval failure.
What is interference?
• Occurs when two pieces of information conflict (interfere) with each other, resulting in forgetting of either one or both pieces or in some distortion of each piece.
• Interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them in our memory store and if we cannot locate them then we forget them. The information is still available as it is in the LTM but it is not accessible as we cannot locate it so it is forgotten.
What are the 2 types of interference?
-Proactive
-Retroactive
What is proactive interference?
When old/existing memories (old learning) disrupts new memories (new learning)
What is retroactive interference?
When new memories (new learning) disrupts old/existing memories (old learning)
Describe Baddeley and Hitch’s (1977) study into forgetting.
Asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they had played earlier in the season. Those who had played fewer games (because they had missed several through injury) recalled more teams than those who had played all season.
Describe Schmidt et al’s (2000) study into forgetting.
Tested participants, who had all shared the same childhood neighbourhood, on the number of street names they could accurately recall from the area. Those who had moved house most in the intervening period recalled fewer street names than other participants.
Explain how these 2 studies support interference theory (3)
Both studies show how two pieces of information conflict each other resulting in forgetting either/both/some of each piece of information. Baddeley and Hitch show how the more games you play the fewer early names they remembered and Schmidt shows how the more you move the fewer street names remembered.
Identify the type of interference demonstrated in each study. Justify your choice for each study. (4)
In both studies, they show retroactive interference as the new memories disrupt old memories. In Baddeley and Hitch’s study the new information of new team names nearer the end of the season had interfered with the old information of teen names at the start of the season and in Schmidt’s study the new memories of a new area disrupted the old memories of street names in the old area. More teams/street names, the poorer the recall.
In both studies, similar amounts of time had elapsed between learning and recall for the participants involved. Explain what this suggests about memories fading over time. Refer to each study in your answer. (3)
Memories do not fade overtime in these studies, as this would mean all players in Baddeley and Hitch’s study should remember the same amount of names and in Schmidt study each person should remember the same amount of street names, however they did not mean memories do not fade overtime as they do not have the same memory.
Describe Mcgeoch and McDonald (1931) study into forgetting.
Aim: To investigate the effect of interference in LTM.
Procedure: They studied retroactive 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 with 100% accuracy. They then learned a new list. There were six groups of participants who had to learn different types of lists.
• Group 1: synonyms – words with the same meanings as the original
• Group 2: antonyms – words with the opposite meanings to the originals
• Group 3: words unrelated to the original ones
• Group 4: nonsense syllables
• Group 5: three digit numbers
• Group 6: no new list – these participants just rested.
Findings: When the participants then recalled the original list of words, their performance depended on the nature of the second list. The most similar material produced the worst recall.
Conclusion: This shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
Why is similar material is more likely to lead to interference and thus why can forgetting can be explained using each type?
• Proactive – previously stored information (old learning) makes it more difficult to store new (similar) information because they are similar.
• Retroactive – new information overwrites previous (similar) information because they are similar.
EVALUATION POINT 1:
(+)Supporting evidence
Many studies such as Baddeley and Hitch, Schmidt, McGeoch and McDonald etc, have found consistent findings that both types of interference are common ways we forget information from the LTM. This is a strength because it means that interference is a reliable explanation of forgetting and thus more likely to be correct/valid.
EVALUATION POINT 2:
(+) Use of lab experiments
Many of the studies into interference have been laboratory experiments which have high control over extraneous variables and thus increase the internal validity of their findings. As interference theory is based on the findings of these studies, it suggests that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.
EVALUATION POINT 3:
(-) Artificial materials
The stimulus material used in many studies are lists of words which participants are required to learn. Although learning lists of actual words is more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, it is still very different from things we learn in real life such as faces, birthdays etc. The use of artificial tasks means we cannot be sure of the ecological validity of interference as an explanation for forgetting, so we cannot be sure that it is an explanation for forgetting in real life.
What is retrieval failure?
• Forgetting occurs due to a lack of appropriate cues.
• When information is stored in LTM, associated cues are stored at the same time. If these cues are not available at the time of recall, then we cannot access the information and we ‘forget’ it. As with interference, the information is still available as it is in the LTM, but it is not accessible as we lack the cues needed to access it, so it is forgotten.
What is the encoding specificity principle (ESP)?
• Tulving reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern to the findings. He summarised the pattern in what he called the Encoding specificity principle (ESP).
• The ESP states that if a cue is to help us to recall information it must be present at encoding (when we learn the material) and at retrieval (when we are recalling it).
• If the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different or missing, then forgetting will occur.
• Some cues are linked to the information in a meaningful way, e.g. the cue ‘LTM’ may lead you to recall all sorts of information about long-term memory.
• Other cues are also encoded at the time of learning and two of these are the main ways in which retrieval failure can occur
What are the 2 types of cues encoded at the time of learning?
-Context-dependent cues
- State-dependent cues
Describe context-dependant forgetting
• Forgetting occurs due to an absence of context-dependent cues.
• A content-dependent cue is something external, such as the environment you are in, which is present at encoding. To maximise remembering the context/environment should be the same when recalling as it was when encoding. If the context is different when recalling, the context-dependent cue is missing, and this is likely to lead to fogetting.
Describe Godden and Baddeley’s study into context-dependent forgetting
Godden and Baddeley (1975)
Aim: To investigate the effect of context-dependent forgetting in LTM.
Procedure: Deep-sea divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land. This created four conditions:
• Learn on land – recall on land
• Learn on land – recall underwater
• Learn underwater – recall underwater
• Learn underwater – recall on land
In two of these conditions the environmental contexts of learning/encoding and recall was matched/the same (land-land and underwater-underwater), whereas in the other two they were non-matched/different (land-underwater and underwater-land).
Findings: Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.
Conclusion: When the external/context cues available at learning/encoding were different from the ones at recall, this led to context-dependent forgetting/retrieval failure. This supports context-dependent forgetting as an explanation for forgetting.
Describe state-dependent forgetting
• Forgetting occurs due to an absence of state-dependent cues.
• A state-dependent cue is something internal, such as your physiological or psychological state (e.g. how you are feeling) at encoding. To maximise remembering the psychological state you are in should be the same when recalling as it was when encoding. If your psychological state is different when recalling, the state-dependent cue is missing, and this is likely to lead to forgetting.
Describe Carter and Cassaday’s (1998) study into state-dependent forgetting
Carter and Cassaday (1998)
Aim: To investigate the effect of state-dependent forgetting in LTM.
Procedure: Gave participants antihistamine (a sedative drug making them slightly drowsy). This created an internal physiological state (drowsy) different from the normal state (awake/alert). The participants then had to learn lists of words and passages of prose then recall the information, again creating four conditions:
• Learn on drug (drowsy) – recall on drug (drowsy)
• Learn on drug (drowsy) – recall not on drug (awake/alert)
• Learn not on drug (awake/alert) – recall on drug (drowsy)
• Learn not on drug (awake/alert) – recall not on drug (awake/alert)
Findings: In the non-matched conditions (where there was a difference between internal state at learning and recall), performance on the memory test was significantly worse.
Conclusion: When the psychological state at learning/encoding was different from the one at recall, this led to state-dependent forgetting/retrieval failure. This supports state-dependent forgetting as an explanation for forgetting.
EVALUATION POINT 1:
(+) Supporting evidence
Eysenck (2010) reviewed the evidence from a range of studies (such Godden & Baddeley (1975), Carter & Cassaday (1998), Goodwin et al (1969) etc) and found that retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting in LTM. This is a strength because consistent supporting evidence increases reliability of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting and means it is more likely to be correct/valid.
EVALUATION POINT 2:
(+) High ecological validity
There is lots of evidence such as Goodwin et al. (1969) which shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the lab. This suggests that the explanation for forgetting has high ecological validity and is likely to be an explanation for forgetting in real-life.
