EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

1. INTERFERENCE

   • THEORY
     • TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION CONFLICT
       • Forgetting occurs in LTM because we can't access memories even though they are avaliable
     • PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE
       • Old interferes with the new
       • EXAMPLE: A teacher learns many names in the past and can't remember the names of her current class
     • RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE
       • New interferes with the old
       • EXAMPLE: A teacher learns many new names this year and can't remember the names of her current students
     • WORSE WHEN MEMORIES ARE SIMILAR
       • In PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
       • In RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE new info overwrites previous memories which are similar
   • STUDY: MCGEOCH + MCDONALD (1931)
     • PROCEDURE
       • Ppts were asked to learn a list of words to 100% accuracy
       • Then given a new list to learn
         • New material varied in the degree to which it was similar to the old:
           • GROUP 1: SYNONYMS (words had SAME meaning)
             • GROUP 2: ANTONYMS (words had OPPOSITE meaning)
               • GROUP 3: UNRELATED (words had NO RELATION)
                 • GROUP 4: NONSENSE SYLLABLES
                   • GROUP 5: THREE-DIGIT NUMBERS
                     • GROUP 6: NO NEW LIST (CONTROL GROUP)
     • FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONS
       • Performance depended on the nature of the second list
         • Most similar material produced the worst recall
       • Mean number of items recalled increased when material was different
       • INTERFERENCE IS STRONGEST WHEN MEMORIES ARE SIMILAR
       • In group 1 it is likely that the new words (w/ the same meaning) blocked access/became confused with the old material
   • SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
     • Lab experiments control the effects of extraneous variables which increases validity
   • ARTIFICIAL MATERIALS
     • Word lists don't replicate what we learn in everyday life
     • Generally we remember things such as faces, birthdays, ingredients....
     • Interference is much more likely in the lab because we don't see the stimulus as useful
   • TIME ALLOWED BETWEEN LEARNING
     • Time limits in lad studies are usually around 20 mins, which doesn't replicate real life
     • Findings may therefore not be generalisable outside the lab as the role of interference may be exaggerated
   • INTERFERENCE EFFECTS MAY BE OVERCOMING CUES
     • TULVING + PSOTKA (1971): gave ppts 5 lists of 24 words each organised into 6 categories (e.g. metals, fruits etc.)
       • Categories weren't explicit but it was assumed they would be obvious when presented
       • Recall was about 70% for the first list, but it fell as each additional list was learnt (presumably due to interference)
       • When given a cued recall test (told the name of the categories), recall rose again to about 70%
   • REAL LIFE STUDIES SUPPORT FINDINGS
     • BADDELEY + HITCH (1977): asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they had played so far in the season, week by week
       • Accurate recall didn't depend on how long ago the match took place, more important was the number of games played in the meantime

2. RETRIEVAL FAILURE

   • ABSENCE OF CUES
     • LACK OF CUES CAN CAUSE RETRIEVAL FAILURE
       • Associated cues stored at the same time as initial memory is made
       • If cues aren't available at the time of recall, may not be able to access a memory that is in fact there
     • ENCODING SPECIFICTY PRINCIPLE (ESP)
       • TULVING (1983): cues help retrieval if the SAME cues are present at encoding and retrieval
       • The closer the retrieval cue to the original cue, the better the cue works
     • SOME CUES HAVE MEANING LINKED TO MEMORY
       • Some cues are linked to the material-to-be-remembered in a meaningful way
       • EXAMPLE: The cue 'STM' may lead you to recall all sorts of information about short-term memory
     • SOME CUES HAVE NO MEANINGFUL LINK
       • CONTEXT DEPENDENT FORGETTING: when memory retrieval is dependent on an external cue (i.e. weather)
       • STATE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING: when memory retrieval is dependent on an internal cue (i.e. state of mind --> feeling upset, being drunk)
   • STUDY: GODDEN + BADDELEY (1975)
     • PROCEDURE
       • Cues = context of where the learning + recall took place (land or water)
       • Deep Sea Divers learned word lists + were later asked to recall them
         • GROUP 1: Learnt on Land; Recall on Land
         • GROUP 2: Learnt on Land; Recall Underwater
         • GROUP 3: Learnt Underwater; Recall on Land
         • GROUP 4: Learnt Underwater; Recall Underwater
     • FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONS
       • GROUP 2 + 3 recall was 40% lower than GROUP 1 + 4 (different contexts vs the same)
       • When external cues which were present at learning differed from the ones at recall, this led to retrieval failure due to a lack of cues
       • Info not accessible when context at recall did not match context at learning
   • CONTEXT EFFECTS ONLY OCCURS WHEN MEMORY IS TESTED IN CERTAIN WAYS
     • GODDEN + BADDELEY (1980) replicated their experiment using a recognition test instead of recall
       • Found no context-dependent effect, performance was the same across all four conditions
   • ESP CANNOT BE TESTED + LEADS TO CIRCULAR REASONING
     • No way to independently establish whether or not the cue has really been encoded
   • CONTEXT-RELATED CUES HAVE USEFUL EVERYDAY APPLICATIONs
     • Revisit the place where you first experienced it
     • Used in the COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
     • Thinking of something upstairs, going downstairs + forgetting, going back upstairs + remembering
   • EVIDENCE SUPPORT
     • EYSENCK (2010) argued that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting in the LTM
     • Increases validity of an explanation, especially when conducted in real life situations
   • CONTEXT EFFECTS AREN'T VERY STRONG IN REAL LIFE
     • BADDELEY (1966) argued that different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen
     • Learning something in one room and recalling in a other is unlikely to result in much forgetting because environments are so similar