explanations for forgetting

• Proactive interference= When older memory interferes with the new

  Retroactive interference= When newer memories interfere with the old
• The study for interference theory was done by McGeoch and McDonald. They studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between the materials learnt. The pp would learn until they could accurately recall. They then learnt a new list.

  Recall was worse in the synonym condition because the words were too similar. Shows that the more similar the material the more interference is likely.
• there is evidence supporting from lab studies. E.g. McGeoch and Mcdonald on retroactive interference and validated by other studies such as Underwood et al. this suggests that interference is a very likely way to forget information in LTM.
• One issue is that they used artificial stimuli. The material used in the study was a list that was just recalled. This doesn't reflect real life recall and forgetting as we are try and remember birthdays or faces which are not replicated in a lab study. lacks ecological validity.
• there is real life applications supporting interference theory. Baddeley and hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they have played in the last season. Those who played more suffered from more interference. This shows that it can operate in everyday situations, increasing the validity.
• Retrieval failure is when the memory is retrieved but the information is not available because of insufficient cues.
• ESP= when a cue is present at the time of encoding and at the time of retrieval
• External cues = Context dependent learning

  Godden and Baddeley carried out a study where divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land. Then they were asked to recall either on land or underwater. Accurate recall when the conditions were the same. This shows external cues are available when learning and recalling in the same context.
• Internal cue=state dependent learning

  Carter et al looked at the effects of anti-histiminesm on recall. This creates a different internal state as the pp would be more drowsy. They had to learn a list of words when they were on the drug and not on the drug and recall either on it or not. When there was a mismatch state recall was worse.
• There is a lot of supporting research on retrieval failure for example Carter et al show that lack of cues at recall leads to everyday forgetting. It is argued to be the main reason for forgetting. This evidence is from a highly controlled lab experiment making it a valid explanation.
• A limitation is that it has been argued that context effects are not very strong in everyday life. The contexts need to be very different before an effect is seen (land and water). In contrast learning in a room and then recalling in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because environments are similar. This means that it may not actually explain much everyday forgetting.
• Tulving says that for a cue to be significant it must be present at both the time of learning and time of recall. It is hard to control whether a cue is encoded or not. This limits the explanation of retrieval failure.