forgetting

• what are the 2 explanations of forgetting?

  1. proactive and retroactive interference
  2. retrieval failure due to absence of cues
• what does interference mean?

  forgetting is a result of competing memories which disrupt and interfere with each other,

  proactive interference: when old learning prevents the recall of newer info,

  retroactive interference: when new learning prevents the recall of previously learned info

  interference is only an issue if the info/memories are similar, e.g. old and new phone numbers
• Schmidt et al research on interference in 2000:

  found that there was a positive association between number of times participants had moved house outside of neighbourhood and number of street names forgotten. Concluded that learning new street names due to moving makes recalling old ones harder to do.

  Evaluation: many extraneous variables that may have confounded results, e.g. if played in the neighbourhood or walked to school then would know street names more, also the methodology could be adapted to test the influence of positive interference too
• what was Baddeley and Hitch's research on interference in 1977?

  used rugby players and asked them to remember the names of the teams they had played. Found that forgetting was more due to the number of games played and not the time passed between games.

  evaluation: interference only really explains forgetting with 2 sets of info that are similar- cannot explain forgetting in real life settings, the lab experiments are artificial and lack mundane realism, the studies don’t show how cognitive processes work
• what was Postman's research on interference in 1960?

  split participants into 2 groups, both had to remember a list of paired words, experimental group then had to remember a second list, where the second paired word was different, the control group didn’t learn the second list.

  he found that the recall of the control group was more accurate than the experimental group.

  he concluded that learning items in the second list interfered with participants’ ability to recall the list, this is an example of retroactive interference.
• strengths of interference as an explanation of forgetting:

  • research evidence from lab experiments, e.g. Postman, to support it,
  • evidence from real-life studies strengthens ecological validity (rugby players study),
  • good explanation if info is similar or there's lots of it,
  • accounts for why we struggle to learn new similar info or recall old info when learning something new (e.g. phone numbers),
  • helps students improve study techniques by avoiding learning similar material close together,
  • explains memory challenges in everyday situations (e.g. teachers remembering students' names)
• weaknesses of interference as an explanation of forgetting:

  • only explains a specific type of forgetting (when info is similar),
  • it's difficult to accurately measure how much forgetting can be attributed to interference,
  • it's oversimplified (little about cognitive mechanisms involved and focuses mainly on memories, neglecting other factors like decay),
  • studies may lack mundane realism (often artificial, e.g. learning word pairs. the time between learning and recall in experiments is usually very short which doesn't reflect real-life)
• preventing effects of interference:

  • avoid learning similar topics close together,
  • leave gaps between learning,
  • use cues; Tulving, 1971
• what is retrieval failure due to the absence of cues?

  info is available but cannot be recalled because of the absence of available cues. research shows that cued recall produces better performance than free recall; Bahrick's high school face study (more people were recognised and matched to the names once given the cues of the names with the photo.)
• what was Tulving and Pearlstone's study on cues in 1966?

  participants were given 48 words to learn, those given category names had 20% better recall than those not given cues.
• what was Bower's study on cues in 1969?


  suggested that organising info aids memory, if the info was random then it made it more difficult. used trigger words (sub-headings) as cues. participants were given an organised or unorganised list; organised- 65% of words recalled, unorganised- 19% of words recalled
• what is context-dependant recall failure?

  forgetting occurs when there is a lack of external contextual cues, where environment for learning and recall is different
• what was Smith's research on context-dependant failure in 1979?


  participants learned 80 words in a basement room, had to recall them the next day, 1/3 recalled in same room (18 words recalled), 1/3 recalled in the 5th floor room (12 words recalled), 1/3 recalled in the 5th floor room but were told to imagine they were in the basement room (17.2 words recalled). this showed that recall is better in the area that info was learnt in
• what was Baddeley and Godden's research on context-dependant failure in 1975?


  1/2 participants learnt words on land, 1/2 learnt them underwater using scuba gear. 1/2 of each group either recalled the words on land or underwater. recall was much worse if they were recalling in the opposite environment to where they had learnt them- 40% less.
• what is the encoding specificity principle?


  it argues that memory is most effective when info (environment) that was present at the time of coding is also present at the time of retrieval
• what is state-dependant recall failure?

  when forgetting occurs when there is a lack of internal contextual cues, where physical state for learning and recall is different (e.g. mood)
• what was Goodwin et al study on state-dependant failure in 1969?


  found that if people learn things when drunk they are more likely to recall them when in a similar state. 48 medical, male students, 4 groups, over 2 days, changing intoxicated/sobriety conditions.

  ethical issues: encourages intoxication
• evaluation of context/state- dependant failure:

  • evidence from lab experiments and real-life experiences
  • artificial, yet do have ecological validity, e.g. people may not be able to remember much of their childhood home until they return there