Forgetting

• 2 components within forgetting

  • Interference
  • Retrieval failure
• Interference

  • when new information or old memories interfere with a memory trace
  • This is likely to occur when the info is similar in some way
  • Retroactive
  • Proactive
• Retroactive

  • forget old information
  • as new information that is similar interferes with the memory trace
  • e.g. Forgetting what you did summer last year because it was too similar to the summer this year
• Proactive

  • forgetting new information because old memory traces interfere with new memory
  • e.g. Forgetting A level biology notes because it is too similar to ones from GCSE
• Retrieval failure

  • This focuses on the environmental cues and emotional cues.
  • Looking at the encoding specificity principle which states that cues/info present at encoding should be present at recall in order for info to be remembered
• Context dependent recall

  • In order to recall more information you need to be in the environment you learnt it in
  • Absence of environmental cues can cause us to forget information
• State dependent recall

  The mental state we are in when learning something can act as a cue therefore if we are in a different mental state for recall we may be unable to access it
• Evaluation for interference

  + McDonald(1931)

  +Muller(1900) = support for retroactive interference

  +Tulving(1971) = support for proactive interference
• Evaluation for retrieval failure

  + Goodwin(1969) = support for state dependent recall

  + Abernethy(1940) = support for context dependent recall
• General weakness for forgetting

  • All research is aritificial and lab based
  • Although this means we can determine cause and effect, it means that STM+LTM aren’t being assessed in relation to how they would be used in real life
• Muller(1900)

  • P’s were given nonsense syllables and asked to recall after 6 minutes
  • Recall was worse if they had been given a task in between learning and recall
  • Highlighting retroactive interference
• Tulving(1971)

  • Gave p’s 5 lists of 24 words which were organised into catergories
  • It was found that recall for list one was around 70% but accurate recall after this dropped
  • This shows proactive interference as the first list of words interfered with the second, third etc.
• +Goodwin - state-dependent recall

  • Found that participants who learnt information while intoxicated, later recalled it more accurately in the same intoxicated state, compared to when they were sober
  • Suggests that different states, drunk vs sober, can lead to retrieval failure due to the absence of internal cues
  • Therefore findings support the theory of state-dependent recall