Explanations for forgetting (booklet 4)

Question 1

Name 2 explanations for forgetting

Answer 1

Interference theory
Retrieval failure due to absence of cues

Question 2

Describe interference theory

Answer 2

We forget because two pieces of information disrupt each other- usually when similar

Question 3

Name the 2 types of interferences

Answer 3

Proactive
Retroactive

Question 4

Describe proactive interference

Answer 4

When information we have previously learnt interferes with new, similar information you are trying to store

Question 5

Describe retroactive interferences

Answer 5

When new information interferes with recall of previously learnt, similar information

Question 6

Give research evidence for retroactive interference

Answer 6

McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
Changed amount of similarity between two sets of materials
6 groups of participants had to learn 10 words
Then each group given a different second list:
Synonyms, antonyms, unrelated words, consonant syllables, 3 digit numbers or no new list
Found that recall of original list depended on nature of second list
Most similar list (synonyms) produced worst recall

Question 7

Give research evidence for proactive interference

Answer 7

Keppel and Underwood (1962)
P’s asked to recall consonant trigrams after varying intervals during which they counted backwards in threes - repeated many times
Found little or no forgetting of trigrams from start of procedure
Can be explained by proactive interference- earlier memory of trigrams had entered LTM and was interfering with recall of later trigrams

Question 8

Evaluate interference theory - validity

Answer 8

Studies supporting are lab based
Allows control of variables to show clear link between interference and forgetting
However artificial materials and unrealistic procedures means it lacks ecological validity

Question 9

Evaluate interference theory - real world evidence

Answer 9

Evidence of interference theory in real life situations
Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams they played that season
Those who played less games due to injuries had better recall
Shows interference had occurred for those who played most games- can occur in real life situations increasing validity of theory

Question 10

Evaluate interference theory- cues

Answer 10

A limitation is that interference is temporary and can be overcome by cues
Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave P’s lists of words in categories one list at a time, recall was around 70% for first list but got progressively worse showing interference
Then gave a cued recall test where told category names and recall rose
Shows interference is temporary so forgetting may be better explained by retrieval failure

Question 11

Describe retrieval failure due to absence of cues

Answer 11

Sees recall as dependent on retrieval cues
Info still in LTM but cannot be accessed as cues encoded with memory are not available to help us retrieve it
Tulving (1983) referred to this as ‘encoding specificity principle’
A cue must be present at encoding and retrieval to be helpful
If cues available at retrieval are difference or absent there will be some forgetting

Question 12

Describe the different types of cues

Answer 12

Some cues are meaningful eg mnemonics
Others are encoded but not in a meaningful way:
Context dependent (external)
State dependent (internal)

Question 13

Describe context dependent forgetting

Answer 13

When recall occurs in a different setting to coding
External cues in environment fail to trigger recall as they are different to when the info was coded

Question 14

Describe state dependent forgetting

Answer 14

Where recall occurs in a different internal state/setting to coding
Internal retrieval cues fail to trigger recall as our state of mind is different to when info was being coded

Question 15

Give research evidence for context dependent forgetting

Answer 15

Godden and Baddeley (1975)
Study of deep sea divers
Learned a list of words either underwater or on land
Then asked to recall under water or on land (created 4 conditions)
Accurate recall was 40% lower in mismatched conditions
External cues available at recall were different to one encoded

Question 16

Give research evidence for state dependent forgetting

Answer 16

Carter and Cassaday (1998)
Gave antihistamine drugs making participants mildly drowsy
Participant had to learn information with of without drug then recall with or without drug (4 conditions)
Mismatched states lead to performance being significantly worse

Question 17

Evaluate retrieval failure - recall vs recognition

Answer 17

Limited to type of memory tested
Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated underwater experiment using a recognition test instead of recall
No context dependent effect
Shows it’s a limited explanation- cues only affected recall of info rather than recognition of it

Question 18

Evaluate retrieval failure - real world application

Answer 18

Can help overcome forgetting in everyday situations
Common to be in one room and need to do something in another room but when you get there forget what it is
May be helpful to recall the environment you learned it in first
Can be applied to strategies in real world to improve recall increasing validity

Question 19

Evaluate retrieval failure- context effects

Answer 19

Baddeley argued context effects not that strong in every day life
Different contexts must be vastly different in order to see effect eg on land and under water
Being in different rooms is generally not different enough
Therefore retrieval failure may not explain much everyday forgetting