Forgetting

• What is the interference theory?

  Interference refers to one memory disturbing the ability to recall another. Could result in loss or distortion of one or both memories. This is more likely to happen if the memories are similar.
• What is proactive interference?


  When previously learnt information interferes with the new information you are trying to store.
• What is retroactive interference?


  When a new memory interferes with older ones.
• How did Underwood and Postman investigate retroactive inference?

  • Participants were divided into two groups
  • Group A were asked to learn a list of word pairs i.e. cat tree. They were then asked to learn a second list of word pairs where the second paired word was different i.e. cat glass.
  • Group B were asked to learn the first list of word pairs only
  • Both groups were asked to recall the first list of word pairs
  • Group B's recall of the first list was more accurate than group A
  • Conclusion = learning paired items in the second list interfered with participants' ability to recall the first list
• Evaluation points for Underwood and Postman's investigation:

  • Procedure was standardised (in each group, participants saw same word lists) so experiment could be replicated
  • Used artificial materials and environments (i.e. word lists are not usually 'learnt and remembered' in a lab in real life) so findings lack ecological validity
  • Participants don't have any real motivation to remember the stimuli, whereas they would in everyday life (e.g. learning for an exam) so again lacks ecological validity
• How did Baddeley and Hitch investigate proactive interference?

  They asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they played during the season. They thought that players who had experienced less injury and hence played more games would experience more interference, so remember fewer teams. and vice versa for players who played less games due to injury. They found that players who missed more games had better recall for the teams recently played and those who had played more games had worse recall.
• Evaluation for Baddeley and Hitch investigation on proactive interference:

  • Natural experiment using rugby players so cannot be easily replicated due to uniqueness of the situation, so low reliability
  • Can't be sure other factors weren't responsible for the remembering or forgetting of which teams were played. Lack of control over variables such as discussion between players, so low internal validity
  • Has greater ecological validity than a lab experiment as it measured memory in every day life. Suggests interference is a common memory problem, so it is relevant to try to study & understand it
• General evaluation points for interference research:

  • Learning and recall tasks given in interference experiments are too close to each other compared to 'real world' remembering and forgetting which reduces ecological validity
  • Most interference research doesn't investigate whether information has been lost or can be recovered later (is it unavailable or is it just inaccessible?) Ceraso showed that if tested again after 24 hours there is significant recovery so the effects of interference might be temporary.
• What is cue-dependent retrieval failure?


  Explains forgetting in the LTM as a retrieval failure. The information is stored in the LTM but can't currently be accessed. Forgetting according to this theory is temporary - a problem of accessibility rather than availability and due to lack of cues.
• What is Tulving's encoding specificity principle?

  "The greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory".

  It implies that when we learn information we also encode:

  The context (external cues)

  The mental state we are in (internal cues)
• Who conducted the divers study to test context-dependent forgetting?

  Godden and Baddeley.
• How did Godden and Baddeley investigate context-dependent forgetting?

  • 18 divers from a diving club were asked to learn lists of 36 unrelated words of two or three syllables
  • One group learnt on the beach and one group learnt underwater. Then one half of each group stayed and recalled in the same environment, and the other half switched to underwater/beach
  • Out of the 4 trial types, those who learnt and recalled in the same environment (underwater/on beach) recalled more words than those who switched environments
  • Supports context dependency in explaining retrieval failure
• Evaluation of Godden and Baddeley diving experiment:

  • Lacks ecological validity - task was artificial. Divers not usually asked to learn a list of words whilst diving
  • Could have low internal validity - those who learnt and recalled in different environments were disrupted (whilst changing environments) which could have influenced their recall
  • Study is reliable - possible to conduct the test again on another group of divers because procedures were standardised
  • Lacks populational validity - used small sample so can't be sure that same results would be found with a different group of divers
• How did Aggleton and Waskett investigate context dependent memory?

  • Based on experiences at the Jorvik Viking centre, which has exhibits with accompanying smells
  • Tested three groups of people who had visited the centre 3 years after their visit
  • Group 1 answered questions with appropriate accompanying smells
  • Group 2 answered questions without the appropriate accompanying smells
  • Group 3 had smells which did not match the ones from the exhibits
  • Found better recall for learning from group 1 compared to other 2 groups
• Evaluation points for Aggleton and Waskett Viking study:

  • Good ecological validity as draws on natural experiences people had in the real world - more likely to represent real life experiences
  • Good internal validity - all other aspects of the study were the same for all groups so only difference was the accompanying/lack of odours
• How did Goodwin et al investigate state-dependent forgetting?

  • 48 male medical students took part in training and testing over a 2 day period; they were randomly assigned to one of four groups
  • SS - Sober both days; AA - intoxicated both days; AS - intoxicated on day one and sober on day two; SA - sober on day one and intoxicated on day two
  • More errors were made on day two in the AS and SA groups than the AA or SS groups. SS had the best results out of all the groups
• Evaluation points for the Goodwin et al study into state-dependent forgetting:

  • Limited ecological validity - Tasks performed by the participants were artificial therefore might not reflect the way they would perform on tasks in everyday life
  • Demand characteristics - Participants knew that they were taking part in a study so they might have changed their behaviour