Explanations of Forgetting

• Interference:

  • Retroactive interference- when new information interferes with existing or recently learnt information, causing a decline in later recall of this existing/ prior learning.
• Interference:

  • Proactive interference- when previous learning interferes with the ability to learn new information, causing a decline in recall of the new information.
• Similarity: interference is strongest when items are more similar as the memories 'interfere' with each other.
• Research Support- Postman- 1960:

  • A lab experiment was used to investigate how retroactive interference affects learning.
  • PPs split into 2 groups, both groups had to remember a list of paired words- cat & tree, jelly & moss.
  • The experimental group also had to learn another list of words where the 2nd paired word is different- cat & glass, jelly & time.
  • The control group were not given the 2nd list & all PPs were asked to recall the words on the 1st list.
• Postman 1960 Research Support- Results:

  • The recall of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental group. Learning a 2nd list decreased recall of 1st list- demonstrating Retroactive Interference.
• Evaluation for Explanations of Forgetting- Weakness:

  • Most research is artificial.
  • Memorising lists of words consecutively is unlikely to occur in real life, so these measurements are unlikely to reflect everyday forgetting.
  • As such, these studies lack ecological validity.
• Evaluation for Explanations of Forgetting- Strength:

  • Baddeley tried to provide real life research support.
  • He interviewed rugby players at the end of the season & showed that those who played in more matches showed more interference when recalling who they played against.
  • Showed interference in real life forgetting.
• Evaluation for Explanations of Forgetting- Weakness:

  • There is an alternative explanation.
  • Retrieval failure in the absence of cues is well researched & is supported as an explanation.
  • This suggests interference has little impact on forgetting.
• Retrieval Failure in the absence of cues:

  • Means that you can temporarily forget information, but if given appropriate cues to jog memory, you can remember (lack of accessibility rather than availability).
  • The cues don't have to be exactly right, but the closer they are, the better recall is.
• The encoding specificity principle:

  • Theory states that you will have better recall of information if you are given a cue that is similar to the original information that will aid recall & the more similar, the more helpful it will be.
  • Tulving & Pearlstone tested theory by asking PPs to memorise 48 words belonging to 12 categories, eg fruit-apple, animal-dog.
  • Were then split into 2 conditions, condition 1 asked to do free recall (no cues/ categories) & condition 2 were given cues in the form of the category names.
• The encoding specificity principle findings:

  • Found that condition 1 recalled 40% of the words & condition 2 recalled 60%.
  • Shows that learned cues are encoded at the time of learning & are therefore linked with learning material.
• Context dependent forgetting (where you were):

  • External cues- theory states that you will have better recall of information if you are attempting to recall it in the same external/ environmental context as you learnt it- eg in the same room.
  • Godden & Baddeley 1975- tested using scuba-divers- Condition 1: learn a set of words on land & recall on land, Condition 2: learn on land & recall underwater, Condition 3: learn underwater & recall underwater, Condition 4: learn underwater & recall on land.
  • Found that the highest recall was when learning & recall environments matched.
• State dependent forgetting (how you feel):

  • Internal cues- theory states that you will have better recall of information if you are attempting to recall it in the same internal context (eg mental state, emotional state) as you learnt it- eg happy or sad.
  • Goodwin et al 1969 tested this theory by asking male PPs to learn word lists when sober or when drunk, & then recall when sober or drunk- creating 4 conditions.
  • Found that recall was better when in the same state/ context as learning.
• Evaluation for Retrieval failure in the absence of cues- Strength:

  • There are many real world applications, such as when taking exams or cognitive interview techniques.
  • Although not realistic to revise in the exam hall, research shows that simply thinking about the room you will sit the exam in when revising, is as effective.