Test 3 Flashcards
(3 cards)
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure due to lack of cues as an explanation for forgetting
Essay plan
Paragraph 1- A01-
-Encoding Specifity principle (proposed by tulving) states that recall is best when there is a large overlap between the cues at retrieval and the cues during learning of the information.
-The explanation of retrieval failure relies on two types of forgetting:
> Context-dependent forgetting: when forgetting occurs due to the abscence of external cues, such as the environment.
> State-dependent forgetting: when forgetting occurs due to the abscence of internal cues, such as mood or tiredness.
Paragraph 2- A03
- Godden and Baddeley deep sea divers task supports retrieval failure due to lack of cues as an explanation for forgetting
- Learnt words underwater or on land and then asked to recall underwater or on land (this made 4 conditions)
- Accurate recall was 47% higher in the matched conditions between learning and recall
> likely to be because the environmental surroundings were the same
This therefore supports the idea that forgetting occurs when there is an abscence of cues, in an environmental scenario.
Paragraph 3- A03
- Carter and Cassaday’s study. PPs were either given antihistamines or not and asked to learn a list of words. They then recalled on or off drugs (4 conditions)
- in the mismatched states learning was significantly worse
- this suggests that forgetting occurs when there is an abscence of state dependant cues.
Methodology comment:
- however, can be said that due to the setting on the experiments the explanation may be limited (most day to day differences are not that extreme e.g an exam hall Vs a classroom) meaning the effects of context could be overestimated
Paragraph 4:A03
Despite methodological concerns, the effect of context cues is has good practical applications
- is used in the CI in eyewitness testimony
- the “reinstate the context” idea allows pps to imagine as if they are back in the scenario and remember what happened
- better convictions in testimonies/ better accuracy
‘Describe and evaluate the theory of the working memory model of memory’
Paragraph 1: A01
- The WMM is a model of memory for STM made of 4 components:
- It suggests that STM is a dynamic processor of different types of information in separate subunits which are controlled by a central system.
Visuo-spatial sketchpad (explain role- 2 parts, capacity, coding)
Phonological loop (explain role- 2 parts, capacity, coding)
Episodic buffer (explain role, coding (modality free))
Central executive (explain role, coding (modality free))
Paragraph 2: A03
P- One strength- The WMM can be supported by the case study of KF. (proves 2 sub components)
E- Was read a list of words (processed in phonological loop), and read another one himself (processed in VSS) – recall of list read by himself was better.
E- This shows that there must be 2 separate spaces for processing iconic and auditory stimuli. KF’s PL was damaged.
L- This provides valid evidence for the theory of the WMM, therefore making it more valid.
ADD: KF’s case study might be limited because it is a case study. It would be unethical to conduct experiments that involve brain damage. Therefore our evidence is based off of one person, and the population validity is low.
Paragraph 3: A03
P- the problem with pop validity was be overcome with lab experiments > for example Baddeley’s dual task studies.
E- Baddeley asked his pps to complete a verbal task and a visual task- or both visual or verbal tasks at the same time.
E- with difference types of tasks, performance was the same. But when the type of task was similar the performance in both declined- because the components were overloaded
L- therefore shows evidence for separate stores or visual and acoustic information
Paragraph 4: A03
P- One limitation- The central executive cannot be proven as a component.
E- We cannot/have not conducted any tests on the central executive
E- Because it is not something that can be measured/manipulated or studied in an experiment.
L- This reduces the scientific credibility of the WMM as it has an unfalsifiable component, and therefore is less valid.
‘Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting.’
Paragraph 1: A01
- The idea of interference as an explanation for forgetting is based on 2 difference types of interference.
- Interference in general is when memories are disrupted by other memories
Retroactive interference: When new memories disrupt old
Proactive interference: When old memories disrupt new
- For both types of interference, forgetting = increased when the memories are similar,
Paragraph 2: A03
P- Strength- The idea of retroactive interference being worse when memories are similar can be supported by McGeoch and McDonald’s study.
E- In the study > recalled a second word lists after learning a first one. The recall from two lists that were synonyms with each other was worse than any other lists.
E- This shows that retroactive interference must be worse when the words are similar as the synonymous word list was worse.
L- Therefore the supporting evidence makes the theory more valid.
Paragraph 3: A03
P- Strength- The idea of proactive interference is supported by Tulving and Psotka’s study.
E- Pps recalled word lists, adding a new list each time. The more lists that were added, the worse their recall was. Started at 79% and just went down.
E- This shows that the memory of the older lists, was disrupting the memory of the newer lists (therefore supporting PI)
L- This increases the validity of the theory of interference as an explanation for forgetting.
Paragraph 4: A03
P- Limitation: Both Tulving & Psotka and McGeoch & McDonald’s study are lab experiments.
E- They take place in controlled environments where the variables can be measured accordingly.
E- Leads to a lack of mundane realism because the environments are set up. The tasks are also not something that would happen regularly in read life. (would not have to read multiple lists and recall in a row)
L- This means that the ecological validity of both of the experiments may be low because the results aren’t generalizable. Lower external validity of supporting experiments.
IF there is time- mention the rugby players study by baddeley- as this improves the point of ecological validity as it is in a real life setting
- Played for same overall time (across a season) but with different games
- Players who played the most games has the poorest recall
