EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

INTERFERENCE
1. THEORY
  1. TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION CONFLICT
    1. Forgetting occurs in LTM because we can't access memories even though they are avaliable
  2. PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE
    1. Old interferes with the new
    2. EXAMPLE: A teacher learns many names in the past and can't remember the names of her current class
  3. RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE
    1. New interferes with the old
    2. EXAMPLE: A teacher learns many new names this year and can't remember the names of her current students
  4. WORSE WHEN MEMORIES ARE SIMILAR
    1. In PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
    2. In RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE new info overwrites previous memories which are similar
2. STUDY: MCGEOCH + MCDONALD (1931)
  1. PROCEDURE
    1. Ppts were asked to learn a list of words to 100% accuracy
    2. Then given a new list to learn
      1. 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)
  2. FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONS
    1. Performance depended on the nature of the second list
      1. Most similar material produced the worst recall
    2. Mean number of items recalled increased when material was different
    3. INTERFERENCE IS STRONGEST WHEN MEMORIES ARE SIMILAR
    4. In group 1 it is likely that the new words (w/ the same meaning) blocked access/became confused with the old material
3. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
  1. Lab experiments control the effects of extraneous variables which increases validity
4. ARTIFICIAL MATERIALS
  1. Word lists don't replicate what we learn in everyday life
  2. Generally we remember things such as faces, birthdays, ingredients....
  3. Interference is much more likely in the lab because we don't see the stimulus as useful
5. TIME ALLOWED BETWEEN LEARNING
  1. Time limits in lad studies are usually around 20 mins, which doesn't replicate real life
  2. Findings may therefore not be generalisable outside the lab as the role of interference may be exaggerated
6. INTERFERENCE EFFECTS MAY BE OVERCOMING CUES
  1. TULVING + PSOTKA (1971): gave ppts 5 lists of 24 words each organised into 6 categories (e.g. metals, fruits etc.)
    1. Categories weren't explicit but it was assumed they would be obvious when presented
    2. Recall was about 70% for the first list, but it fell as each additional list was learnt (presumably due to interference)
    3. When given a cued recall test (told the name of the categories), recall rose again to about 70%
7. REAL LIFE STUDIES SUPPORT FINDINGS
  1. BADDELEY + HITCH (1977): asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they had played so far in the season, week by week
    1. Accurate recall didn't depend on how long ago the match took place, more important was the number of games played in the meantime
RETRIEVAL FAILURE
1. ABSENCE OF CUES
  1. LACK OF CUES CAN CAUSE RETRIEVAL FAILURE
    1. Associated cues stored at the same time as initial memory is made
    2. If cues aren't available at the time of recall, may not be able to access a memory that is in fact there
  2. ENCODING SPECIFICTY PRINCIPLE (ESP)
    1. TULVING (1983): cues help retrieval if the SAME cues are present at encoding and retrieval
    2. The closer the retrieval cue to the original cue, the better the cue works
  3. SOME CUES HAVE MEANING LINKED TO MEMORY
    1. Some cues are linked to the material-to-be-remembered in a meaningful way
    2. EXAMPLE: The cue 'STM' may lead you to recall all sorts of information about short-term memory
  4. SOME CUES HAVE NO MEANINGFUL LINK
    1. CONTEXT DEPENDENT FORGETTING: when memory retrieval is dependent on an external cue (i.e. weather)
    2. STATE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING: when memory retrieval is dependent on an internal cue (i.e. state of mind --> feeling upset, being drunk)
2. STUDY: GODDEN + BADDELEY (1975)
  1. PROCEDURE
    1. Cues = context of where the learning + recall took place (land or water)
    2. Deep Sea Divers learned word lists + were later asked to recall them
      1. GROUP 1: Learnt on Land; Recall on Land
      2. GROUP 2: Learnt on Land; Recall Underwater
      3. GROUP 3: Learnt Underwater; Recall on Land
      4. GROUP 4: Learnt Underwater; Recall Underwater
  2. FINDINGS + CONCLUSIONS
    1. GROUP 2 + 3 recall was 40% lower than GROUP 1 + 4 (different contexts vs the same)
    2. 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
    3. Info not accessible when context at recall did not match context at learning
3. CONTEXT EFFECTS ONLY OCCURS WHEN MEMORY IS TESTED IN CERTAIN WAYS
  1. GODDEN + BADDELEY (1980) replicated their experiment using a recognition test instead of recall
    1. Found no context-dependent effect, performance was the same across all four conditions
4. ESP CANNOT BE TESTED + LEADS TO CIRCULAR REASONING
  1. No way to independently establish whether or not the cue has really been encoded
5. CONTEXT-RELATED CUES HAVE USEFUL EVERYDAY APPLICATIONs
  1. Revisit the place where you first experienced it
  2. Used in the COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
  3. Thinking of something upstairs, going downstairs + forgetting, going back upstairs + remembering
6. EVIDENCE SUPPORT
  1. EYSENCK (2010) argued that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting in the LTM
  2. Increases validity of an explanation, especially when conducted in real life situations
7. CONTEXT EFFECTS AREN'T VERY STRONG IN REAL LIFE
  1. BADDELEY (1966) argued that different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen
  2. Learning something in one room and recalling in a other is unlikely to result in much forgetting because environments are so similar

Siguiente

EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por Albie Quelcuti hace más de 8 años