Karteikarten
Explanations for Forgetting
Karten in diesem Stapel (17)
- 1TRACE DECAYThe suggestion that the memory code created in the brain to store an item has disappeared.
- 2INTERFERENCE THEORYForgetting due to information in LTM becoming confused with or disrupted by other information during coding, leading to inaccurate recall.
- 3PRO-ACTIVE INTERFERENCEWhere old information prevents recall of new information.
- 4RETRO-ACTIVE INTERFERENCEWhere new learning prevents recall of previously learned information.
- 5SCHMIDT ET ALStudy on retroactive interference where ppt's were given a questionnaire on the street names, where they had gone to school and also asked how many times they had moved house.
They found the more times a participant had moved, the more street names they forgot suggesting learning new street names when moving makes recalling old street names harder. - 6STRENGTH: BADDELEY AND HITCHPpts who had played a varying number of rugby union games asked to recall as many of the teams they had played against as possible.
They assessed interference using the number of games played, and found that forgetting was due more to the number of games played rather than time passed- supporting interference theory. - 7WEAKNESS: LIMITED EXPLANATIONOnly really explains forgetting when two sets of information are similar e.g simultaneously learning French and Spanish.
This does not happen very often and so nterference cannot explain forgetting in the majority of real life events. - 8WEAKNESS: LAB EXPERIMENTSResearch into interference tends to use laboratory experiments based around artificial tasks, such as learning of word pairs.
They can be accused of lacking mundane realism, not relating to real life scenarios. - 9CUE DEPENDANT FORGETTINGwhen information is still in LTM but it can't be accessed.
Suggests recall requires retreival cues linked to information during coding. - 10CRAIK & TULVINGPpts were shown words and asked questions that had different depths of processing i.e. some required semantic processing.
Ppts were more likely to recall words if they had been processed semantically showing that more processing creates more cues for recall. - 11CONTEXT DEPENDANT FORGETTINGOccurs when the environment during recall in different than the environment during learning and coding.
- 12ABERNATHY ET ALFound that ppt's after learning new information recalled it less well when tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room.
This supports context-dependent failure as an explanation of forgetting. - 13GODDEN AND BADDELEYGot divers to learn new information on dry land or while under water and they found that recall was found to be worse when it occurred in a different context to coding. e.g. recalling words learned under water were recalled better when under water.
- 14STATE DEPENDANT FORGETTINGOccurs when your mood or physiological state during recall is different than during coding.
- 15OVERTONPpts learnt new information when either drunk or sober and found that recall was worse when participants were in a different internal state at recall than during coding. e.g. recalling information learned when drunk was better if it had been learned when drunk.
- 16DARLEY ET ALPpts hid money while high on marijuana and found they were less able to recall were the money was when they were not high than when they were high again.
- 17WEAKNESS: LAB EXPERIMENTSMany studies supporting CDF are laboratory studies meaning they are not like everyday memory tasks, and therefore lack ecological validity.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A level Psychology (memory) Karteikarten am Explanations for Forgetting, erstellt von chloe 67 am 11/04/2017.
- Erstellt von
- chloe 67
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung