EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

1. Interference theory

   • An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another. More likely when 2 memories are similar.
   • Proactive interference (pro=forward) occurs when you cant learn a new task because an old task that had been learnt. When what we already know interferes with what we are currently learning – where old memories disrupt new memories.
   • Retroactive interference (retro=backward) occurs when you forget a previously learnt task due to the learning of a new task. Later learning interferes with earlier learning - where new memories disrupt old memories.
   • Underwood and Postman
     • Aim: To investigate how retroactive interference affects learning. So to investigate whether info you have recently received interferes with the ability to recall something you learned earlier.
     • Method: lab experiment
     • Procedure: Pts were split into 2 groups. Both groups had to remember a list of paired words e.g. cat-tree, jelly-moss, book-tractor. The experimental group also had to learn another list of words where the second paired word if different – e.g. cat–glass, jelly-time, book–revolver. The control group were not given the 2nd list. All pts were asked to recall the words on the first list.
     • Results: The recall of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental group.
     • Conclusion: This suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with pts’ ability to recall the list. This is an example of retroactive interference
   • Evauation: It’s artificial. Lab experiments e.g. in the Postman study it required groups to remember a list of paired words e.g. cat – tree. But, in everyday life the information we need to recall is different, e.g. people’s faces, their birthdays, the ingredients of a pizza. So artificial lab studies lack mundane realism and are low in ecological validity. Therefore, it means we cant generalise the findings from such studies to everyday life as there may well be other factors that influence forgetting.
   • Evaluation: Real world application. Is interference a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time. They asked rugby players to try to remember the names of the teams they had played so far in that season, week by week. Most players had missed games, for some the ‘last team’ they played might have been 2+ weeks ago. The results showed that accurate recall didnt depend on how long ago the matches took place. It was also found that the number of games they played in the meantime was also influential. So if a player’s recall of a team from 3 weeks ago was better if they had played no matches since then. Therefore, this study shows that interference explanations can apply to at least some everyday situations.

2. Retrieval failure

   • Retrieval failure = A form of forgetting. It occurs when we don’t have the necessary cues to access memory. The memory is available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided.
   • Cue = A ‘trigger’ of information that allows access to a memory
   • Type of cue
     • Encoding: Memory is most effective if info that was present at encoding is also available at the time of retrieval. Also states cue don’t have to be exactl but the closer the cue is to the original item, the more useful it will be.
       • Tulving and Pearlstone
         • Pts had to learn 48 words in 12 categories. There were 2 recall conditions. Either 1. recalling as amany words as they could or 2. they were given cues (category name). Resiults: 1. 40% recall, 2. 60% recall. Cues allow us to access memories.
     • State Form of Cue-dependent forgetting where recall occurs in a different internal setting to when info was encoded. So the mental state youre in at the time of learning can also act as a cue. E.g. learning a phone number when drunk but not being able to remember it when sober
       • Goodwin et al
         • Asked male pts to remember words drunk or sober (3 times the limit in the UK) they were asked to recall the words after 24 hours. Results showed info learnt when drunk is more available when in the same state later.
     • Context-Form of cue dependent failure where recall occurs in a different external setting or environment, e.g. getting fewer marks on a test sat in a hall than when taken in the usual classroom.
       • Godden and Baddeley
         • Investigated contextual cues. Scuba divers were pts they were tested on land or in water. 4 experimental conditions. Results showed recall was higher when in the same condition e.g. learning on land and recall on land.
   • Evaluation: The danger of circulatory, Claims: relationship between encoding cues and later retrieval is a correlation not a cause. Cues dont cause retrieval theyre just associated with it. others argue the encoding specificity principle (ESP) is impossible to test because its circular. Stimulus leads to retrieval of a memory then it must have been encoded in memory. If it doesnt lead to retrieval then according to the ESP its not been encoded. But its impossible to test an item if it hasnt been encoded so it cant be proved.
   • P–Research shows forgetting is due to the absence of cues. E – pts were given 5 lists of 24 words, each list organised into 6 categories. E.g. hut, cottage, tent, hotel, cliff, river, hill, volcano. Categories weren’t explicit, it was presumed that they would be obvious to pts. Recall 70% for the first list but this fell as pts were given each additional list to learn, presumably due to interference. E – However, at the end they were given a cued recall test – they were told the names of the categories as a clue. Recall rose again to about 70%. L – Therefore, this shows info is available but cant be retrieved this shows retrieval failure is a more important explanation of forgetting than interference.

Imágenes y archivos del mapa