forgetting

Question 1

what are the two main explanations for forgetting?

Answer 1

•proactive/ retroactive interference
•retrieval failure

Question 2

what is interference?

Answer 2

this describes a disruption in retrieval when similar information is being accessed from long term memory

Question 3

what is proactive interference?

Answer 3

this involves old information interfering with new information

Question 4

what is retroactive interference?

Answer 4

this involves new information interfering with old information

Question 5

who studied retroactive interference?

Answer 5

McGeoch and McDonald (1931)

Question 6

what were the procedures of McGeoch and McDonald’s study

Answer 6

•they studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials
•participants had to learn 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy
•they then learned a new list, each group had to learn a different type of list
(synonyms, antonyms, unrelated adjectives, consonant syllables, numbers, none)

Question 7

what were the findings of McGeoch and McDonald’s study?

Answer 7

•mean number of items recalled from least to most -
synonyms, antonyms, unrelated adjectives, consonant syllables, numbers, none
•the more similar the second list of words was to the first one, the worse the recall of the first list.
•interference is strongest when memories are similar

Question 8

3 evaluation points of the interference explanation

Answer 8

•strength- supported by research
•limitation- artificial materials
•strength- real-life studies

Question 9

interference explanation
strength: supported by research

Answer 9

•research by McGeoch and McDonald, and most of these studies, show that interference is likely to be a common way we forget
•this is a strength as lab experiments control extraneous variables and conclude that interference is a valid explanation for at least some of our forgetting

Question 10

interference explanation:
limitation: artificial materials

Answer 10

•the stimulus materials used in most studies are a list of words. While learning a list of words is more realistic then learning trigrams, it is still far from the things we remember everyday (like faces, birthdays ect)
•the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the lab, as the studies are conducted to specifically investigate interference
•this means studies on interference lack ecological validity and interference may not be a explanation for forgetting in everyday life

Question 11

interference explanation:
strength: real- life studies

Answer 11

•baddeley and Hitch (1977) wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time
•they asked rugby players to remember the names of teams they had played that season, week by week.
•they found that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the last match was played, but rather the number of matches played in the meantime
•this study showed that interference explanations can apply to at least some everyday situations

Question 12

what is retrieval failure?

Answer 12

a type of forgetting when we don’t have the necessary cues to trigger recall

Question 13

what are the two types of retrieval failure?

Answer 13

•context- dependant forgetting
•state-dependant forgetting

Question 14

who conducted a study into context- dependant forgetting?

Answer 14

Godden and Baddeley (1975)

Question 15

what was the procedure of the study into context-dependant forgetting?

Answer 15

•Godden and Baddeley carried out a study involving sea divers underwater to investigate how context affected memory recall
•divers were asked to learn a list of words either underwater or on land, they were then asked to recall the words in one of those places
•this led to the study having 4 conditions
(LL-RL/ LL-RW/ LW-RL/ LW-RW)

Question 16

what were the findings of the study into context-dependant forgetting?

Answer 16

in the two conditions where the environmental context of learning and recall were matched, accurate recall was higher.
•Accurate recall was 40% lower if the environment the words were encoded in was different to the one recalled in (the non-matching conditions)
•the external cues available at learning were different from the ones at recall and this led to retrieval failure

Question 17

how much lower was recall in Godden and Baddeley’s non-matching conditions?

Answer 17

40%

Question 18

who carried out the study into state- dependant forgetting?

Answer 18

Carter and Cassaday

Question 19

what were the procedures of the state-dependant forgetting study?

Answer 19

•the study was carried out my Carter and Cassaday and they gave anti-histamine drugs to participants which made them slightly drowsy, changing their internal physiological state
•the participants had to learn a list of words in different conditions
(LD-RD, LD-RN, LN-RD, LN-RN)
drowsy/normal

Question 20

what were the findings of the study into state-dependent forgetting?

Answer 20

in the conditions where the words were learned and recalled in different conditions, performance on the memory test was significantly worse.
•so when cues are absent (eg if you are drowsy when learning them but alert when recalling) then there is a higher chance of forgetting

Question 21

what is context- dependent forgetting?

Answer 21

recall depends on an external cue like location, if not we forget the information. Forgetting occurs if this cue is not present

Question 22

what is state-dependent forgetting?

Answer 22

recall depends on an internal cue like mood

Question 23

what does the encoding specificity principle say?

Answer 23

•according to this, if a cue is present at the time of encoding and at the time of retrieval, then recall is likely
•however, if the cue is absent at recall, then retrieval failure may occur

Question 24

what is the importance of cues?

Answer 24

•information we store is not isolated, instead the information is meaningfully connected with other pieces of information (e.g the senses)
•these connections are called cues, and can trigger the retrieval of the related memory

Question 25

3 evaluation points for retrieval failure

Answer 25

•strength: supporting evidence
•limitation: questioning context effects
•limitation: recall vs recognition

Question 26

retrieval failure explanation
strength: supporting evidence

Answer 26

•there is a range of research that supports the retrieval failure explanation- for example studies by godden & baddeley and carter & cassaday
•michael eysenck (2010) argues that retrieval failure is that main reason for forgetting from the LTM
•this support increases the validity of the explanation and is especially significant when the evidence shows retrieval failure occurs in real life

Question 27

retrieval failure
limitation: questioning context effects

Answer 27

•baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are not actually very strong, especially in real life. different contexts have to be very different for an effect to me seen. most changed in context are too subtle (eg one room vs another room)
•the example of on land vs underwater is too drastic to be generalised to everyday changes in context
•this is a limitation because it means the real life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain forgetting

Question 28

retrieval failure
limitation: recall versus recognition

Answer 28

•the context effect may be related to the kind of memory tested
•Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater study but with a recognition test instead of recall (whether the participant recognised the word read from the list, rather than recalling it themselves)
•when recognition was tested there was no context-dependant effect, performance was the same as all 4 conditions
•this means that the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you text it in a certain way

Question 29

a limitation regarding the encoding specificity principle

Answer 29

•the ESP is not testable and leads to a form of circular reasoning
•in experiments where a cue produces successful recall of a word, we assume that the cue must have been encoded at the time of learning
•if the cue does not result in a successful recall of a word, then we assume the word was not encoded at the time of learning
•these are just assumptions, there is no way to independently establish whether or not the cue has really been encoded