Explanations for Forgetting

Seite 1

Interference

AO1

Interference is an explanation for forgetting from long-term memory - it is when two sets of information, previously learned (old) and recently learned (new), become confused.

Note: Semantic memory is more resistant to interference than other types of memory.

Proactive Interference - this is where previously learned information prevents the recall of recently learned information by "interfering" with it (we get them 'mixed up'). It is where what we already know interferes with what we are currently learning; in other words, where old interferes with new. An example is recalling your old mobile number instead of your new one.

Retroactive Interference - this is where recently learned information prevents the recall of previously learned information by "interfering" with it (we get them 'mixed up'). It is where recently obtained knowledge interferes with previously obtained knowledge; in other words, new interferes with old. An example is learning French, having previously learned Spanish, and then accidentally say some French things when attempting to speak Spanish.

Proactive and retroactive interference is thought to be more likely to occur where the memories are similar - for example, confusing old and new routines. Chandler (1989) stated that students who study similar subjects at the same time often experience interference. French and Spanish are similar types of material, which makes interference more likely.

AO3

Postman (1960) provides evidence to support the interference theory of forgetting. A lab experiment was used, and participants were split into two groups. Both groups had to remember a list of words - for example, cat, jelly, book. The experimental group also had to learn another, different list of words - for example, glass, time, revolver. The control group were not given the second list. All participants were asked to recall the words on the first list. The recall of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental group. This suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with participants' ability to recall the first list. This is an example of retroactive interference.

Although proactive and retroactive interference are reliable and robust effects, there are a number of problems with interference theory as an explanation of forgetting.

First, interference theory tells us little about the cognitive processes involved in forgetting. Secondly, the majority of research into the role of interference in forgetting has been carried out in a laboratory using a list of words, a situation which is unlikely to occur in day-to-day life - this means that there is low ecological validity. As a result, it may not be possible to generalise to other situations from the findings.

Baddeley states that the tasks given to subjects are too close to each other and, in real life, these kinds of events are more spaced out. Nevertheless, recent research has attempted to address this by investigating 'real-life' events and has provided support for the interference theory. There is no doubt that interference plays a role in forgetting, however how much forgetting can be attributed to interference remains unclear.

Seite 2

Retrieval Failure

AO1

Retrieval failure is where information is available in long-term memory, but cannot be recalled because of the absence of appropriate cues. Types of cues that have been studied by psychologists are internal cues (state) and external cues (context).

When we store a new memory, we also store information about the situation - these are known as retrieval cues. When we come into the same situation again, these retrieval cues can trigger the recall of the information they were coded (learned) with.

Context-Dependent Retrieval

This is retrieval upon experiencing similar external cues at the time of recall to the ones at the time of coding (learning). External cues are the environment, such as location, smell, etc. Evidence indicates that retrieval is more likely when the context (external cues) at coding matches the context at retrieval. For example, you want something to eat and so go from the living room to the kitchen, but upon entering the kitchen you forget why you went in there and this is because the external cue of being in the living isn't present in the kitchen. This means that you then recall your reasoning behind going into the kitchen when you go back into the living room, as this is the same external cue that was present at the time of coding.

State-Dependent Retrieval

This is retrieval upon experiencing similar internal cues at the time of recall to the ones at the time of coding. Internal cues are bodily cues inside of us, such as physical or emotional state - for example, drunk, happy, sad, etc. The basic idea behind state-dependent retrieval is that recall will be best when a person's physical or psychological state is similar at coding and retrieval. For example, if someone tells you a joke on Saturday night after a fee drinks, you'll be more likely to remember it when you're in a similar state - when you next go out and have a few drinks. Stone cold sober on Monday morning, however, you'll be more likely to forget the joke.

AO3

According to retrieval failure theory, forgetting occurs when information is available in LTM but is not accessible. Accessibility depends largely on retrieval cues. Forgetting is greatest when context and state are very different at coding and retrieval. In this situation, retrieval cues are absent at the time of retrieval and so the likely result is cue-dependent forgetting.

A number of experiments have indicated the importance of context-based (external) cues for retrieval. An interesting experiment conducted by Baddeley indicates the importance of context setting for retrieval. Baddeley (1975) asked deep-sea divers to memorise a list of words. One group did this on the beach, and the other group did it underwater. When they were asked to remember the words, half of the beach learners remained on the beach, and the rest had to recall underwater; and half of the underwater learners stayed there, and the rest had to recall on the beach. The results show that those who had recalled in the same environment (context) which they had learned in, recalled 40% more words than those recalling in a different environment. This suggests that the retrieval of information is improved if it occurs in the context in which it was learned.

A study by Goodwin investigate the effect of alcohol on state-dependent retrieval. They found that when people had coded information when drunk, they were more likely to recall it in the same state. For example, when they hid money and alcohol when drunk, they were unlikely to find them when sober. However, when they were drunk again, they often discovered the hiding place. Other studies found similar state-dependent effects when participants were given drugs such as marijuana.

People tend to remember material better when there is a match between their mood at learning and at retrieval. The effects are stronger when the participants are in a positive mood than a negative mood. They are also greater when people try to remember events having personal relevance.

The ecological validity of these experiments can be questioned, but their findings are supported by evidence from outside the laboratory. For example, many people say they can't remember much about their childhood or their school days, but returning to the house in which they spent their childhood or the school they went to often provides retrieval cues which trigger a flood of memories.