Explenations For Forgetting Flashcards
(11 cards)
What is proactive interfernace?
When old information stored in LTM interferes with the learning of new information, likely to occur when information is similar
Study to talk about proactive interference
Keppel and Underwood, participants were prensted with meaningless three-letter consonant trigrams at different intervals. To prevent rehearsal the participants had to count backwards in threes before recalling. They found participants remembered the trigrams that were represented first, irrespective of the interval length. Shows earlier consonants interfered with the memory of new consonants
Retroactive interference meaning
When the learning of now info interferes with the recall of old info from the LTM, likely to occur when information is similar
Retroactive interfenace key study
Baddley and Hitch. The sample comprised rugby union players who had played every match in the season and players who had missed some games due to injury. The length of time from the start to the end of the season was the same for all players, and players were asked to recall the names of the teams they had played against earlier in the season. Results showed trhat The players who had played the most games forgot proportionately more games than those who had played fewer games due to injury.
Showed learning of new info interfered with the memory of old info.
What is retrieval failure due to absence of cues
When info cannot be retrieved because of insufficient cues to trigger memory. Tulving and Thomson proposed the encoding specificity principle and argued that memory is most effective when information that was preensts at the time of coding is also prensts at the time of retrieval.
What are the two types of retrieval failure
Context dependant (when envrieontal cues are missing) and state dependant (when an individual emotional state is different when trying to recall info)
Context dependant forgetting key study
Godden and Baddley got a sample of 18 participants who were divided into four conditions. (Learning on land and recalling on land/water, learning in water and recalling in land/water) in all conditions Ps were presented with 38 words which they heard twice. After that they were instructed to write all the words they could remember. Results showed words recalled in the same envrriuoenet as learned was better.
State dependant forgetting key study
Carter & Cassaday examined state-dependent forgetting using anti-histamine drugs. (Sedating drowsy effect) 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:
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-histamine drugs
4) learn the words/text without anti-histamine and recall after taking the anti-histamine drugs
Findings: In the conditions where the learning and recalling state matched memory was improved.
Context dependant forgetting study AO3
- Although the results suggest that environment cues aid memory recall, Godden & Baddeley didn’t control many other variables. The divers took part in the experiment at different times of the day and at different diving locations. Therefore, each diver would have experienced other contextual cues, which may have affected their memory. Therefore, we are unable to conclude whether the results of Godden & Baddeley’s research is due to the on land/underwater contextual cues, or another contextual cue provided by the different time of day or diving location.
• Godden & Baddeley used a repeated measures design, as each diver took part in all four conditions. It is possible that the divers worked out the aim of the experiment and displayed demand characteristics or order effects. By the fourth trial the participants may have demonstrated practice effects where their recall improved as a result of completing the experiment multiple times, or even fatigue effects where their results declined as a result of boredom. A more suitable experimental design would have been independent measures. However, this would have required significantly more participants, which would be difficult to achieve when recruiting trained divers. Furthermore, with a sample of just 18 divers the conclusions drawn should be treated with caution. Additionally, the context examined in their study is extreme and provides little insight into context-dependent forgetting in everyday life.
State dependant forgetting study AO3
- There is research support for the effect of state-dependent retrieval failure, which occurs when an individual’s emotional state at the time of learning is different to their emotional state at the time of recall. For example, Goodwin et al. (1969), asked male volunteers 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. The results of Goodwin et al. support Godden and Baddeley, as 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 and demonstrate the power of ‘state’ on recalling information.
• There is research support for state-dependent forgetting using a range of different substances to create an alternative state of consciousness. Darley et al., (1973) researched the impact of marijuana on an individual’s recollection. It was found that individuals who were under the influence of marijuana when they put money in a ‘safe place’ were less able to recall where this location was once they were no longer under the influence of the drug. This evidence adds weight to the argument that the emotional and physiological state that a person is in at the time of encoding is important at the time of retrieval.
What is inference
Suggetsing that forgetting is caused by competing memeories (existing memeories interfere with learning of new information or the other way round)
