Explanations for Forgetting

Explanations for Forgetting

1. Interference

   • One memory disrupts the ability to recall another
     • Results in either forgetting or a memory being distorted
     • More frequent with similar memories
   • Proactive interference
     • Old memory interferes with new memory
   • Retroactive interference
     • New memory interferes with old memory
   • McGeoch & McDonald (1931)
     • Pps learn list of 10 words until could remember with 100% accuracy
       • Then learned new word list - 6 groups, each with word list of varying similarity to first word list
         • E.g. one group learned synonyms, another group antonyms etc.
           • Pps then recall original word list
             • Results: most similar second list (synonyms) produced worst recall
               • Conclusion: interference strongest when memories are similar
     • Evaluation
       • Strengths
         • Lab study
           • High control over extraneous variables so more valid
         • Supported by real-life studies
           • Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to remember names of teams they played for week by week
             • Results showed that accuracy not affected by time but by no. of matched played in meantime since match
               • Shows interference explanation can apply to some everyday situations
       • Limitations
         • Lack of ecological validity due to artificial materials
           • Word list not representative of information people try and remember irl
           • Artificial tasks make interference more likely in the lab

2. Retrieval Failure

   • Cue Dependent forgetting - Tulving (1983)
     • Forgetting caused by insufficient cues
     • When we encode new memory, we also store info around it (cues)
       • E.g. how we felt, physical environment etc.
       • If cannot recall memory, may be because correct cues not present as not in similar situation
     • Encoding Specificity Principle (Tulving)
       • The greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory
     • 2 types of cue dependent forgetting
       • Context dependent forgetting
         • External environment cues e.g. location, objects around you, music
         • Godden & Baddely (1975)
           • Procedure: Divers learn and later recall list of words. 4 groups, each group with different condition
             • Group 1: Learn on land - recall on land Group 2: Learn on land - recall underwater Group 3: Learn underwater - recall on land Group 4: learn underwater - recall on land
             • Results: Accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions
               • Environment was different so lack of environmental cues
           • Evaluation
             • Limitations
               • Limited ecological validity
                 • Task was artificial as not usually need to learn list of meaningless words
                   • E.g. people have more motivation to learn meaningful material
               • Disruption
                 • Groups that learned and recalled in different environments were disrupted which could have influenced recall
             • Strengths
               • Controlled experiment
                 • Control over extraneous variables
                 • Followed standardised procedure
                   • Can be replicated so reliability can be tested
               • Support from real-life cases
                 • Abernathy (1940) - students perform better on tests if tests took place in same room as where learned material and administered by same teacher
         • Why cognitive interviews ask witness to describe environment
       • State dependent forgetting
         • Internal cues e.g. thoughts, emotions, alertness levels etc.
         • Carter & Cassaday (1998)
           • Gave anti-histamines to pps - anti-histamines mild sedative so made pps drowsy
             • Creates internal physiological state different from normal state
             • Group 1: Learn on drug - recall on drug Group 2: Learn on drug - recall not on drug Group 3: Learn not on drug - recall when on drug Group 4: Learn not on drug - recall not on drug
             • Results: Significantly worse recall in non-matching conditions
           • Evaluation
             • Strengths
               • Controlled experiment (same as context evaluation)
               • Support from real-life cases
                 • Goodwin (1969) - heavy drinkers forget where they put things when sober but recall locations when drunk again
             • Limitations
               • Demand characteristics
               • Artificial stimuli (same as context)
               • Limited ecological validity (same as context)
         • Why cognitive interviews ask witness to describe emotional state when incident took place