forgetting

• forgetting


  loss of ability to recall / recognise something that's previously been taught
• interference


  -one memory disrupts the ability to remember another

  -happens when 2 memories are quite similar
• proactive interference


  -past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something

  -pro = going forwards (old disrupting new)
• retroactive interference 


  -where current attempts to learn something interferes with past learning

  -retro = going backwards (new disrupting old)
• rugby player study - AIM


  -BADDELEY & HITCH

  -investigate whether interference is a better explanation of forgetting than the passing of time
• rugby player study - PROCEDURE 


  -rugby players asked to recall names of teams they'd played against week by week over the season

  -some players played all games

  -some missed games

  -time span the same for all players
• rugby player study - FINDINGS


  -rugby players who played the most games forgot a higher number of team names
• rugby player study - CONCLUSION


  -suggests interference caused the forgetting & not the passing of time

  -players who played more games had more team names to interfere with each other
• variables of rugby player study

  -IV = some players played all games & some played some

  -DV = the number of team names successfully recalled

  -EV = same season, length of decay controlled
• POSTMANs study supporting retroactive interference - AIM


  -1960

  -investigate how retroactive interference affects learning

  -whether info you've recently received interferes with ability to recall something you learnt earlier
• POSTMANs study supporting retroactive interference - PROCEDURE


  -lab experiment

  -Ps split into two groups

  -both had to remember a list of paired words

  -experimental group also had to learn another list of words where second paired word was different

  -control group not given second list

  -all Ps asked to recall first list
• POSTMANs study supporting retroactive interference - FINDINGS


  -recall of control group more accurate
• POSTMANs study supporting retroactive interference - CONCLUSION


  -suggests learning items in second list interfered with Ps ability to recall the first

  -retroactive interference
• retrieval failure


  -forgetting occurs when info stored in LTM can't be found

  -failure to remember an item of info because you have insufficient clues / cues

  -info may come back when given a hint

  -'tip of the tongue'
• general retrieval failure - supporting evidence


  -Tulving

  -gave list of words to Ps

  -tested free recall on 3 different occasions

  -Ps on average recalled 50% of words

  -words recalled different each time

  -concluded words stored in memory but weren't always accessible
• context dependent forgetting


  -recall can be increased by increasing amount of cues

  -forgetting occurs with absence of cues due to change in context
• state dependent forgetting


  -recall increased if in same state as to when you learnt the info

  -forgetting occurs due to lack of retrieval cues when you're in different state
• divers study (supporting CDF) - AIM


  -investigate whether context is important in forgetting
• divers study (supporting CDF) - PROCEDURE


  -divided into 2 groups

  -asked to learn list of words either underwater or on land

  -had to recall either in same environment or opposite
• divers study (supporting CDF) - FINDINGS


  -recall higher in same environment they learnt in

  -in different environment were forgotten due to lack of retrieval cues
• divers study (supporting CDF) - CONCLUSION


  absence of cues in environment increases forgetting
• student study (supporting CDF) - AIM


  -investigate whether context is important in forgetting
• student study (supporting CDF) - PROCEDURE 


  -students tested each week either in their class room or a different class

  -divided in 2 more groups in each room where they're tested either by own or different instructor
• student study (supporting CDF) - FINDINGS


  -those tested by same instructor in same room performed best

  -due to available cues
• student study (supporting CDF) - CONCLUSION


  study also shows evidence of context dependent forgetting
• Goodwin et al. study (supporting SDF) - AIM 


  -investigate state dependent forgetting
• Goodwin et al. study (supporting SDF) - PROCEDURE


  -male volunteers asked to learn a list of words where either drunk / sober

  -24 hours later Ps recalled words either in same state or opposite as learnt in
• Goodwin et al. study (supporting SDF) - FINDINGS


  -recall much higher when recall state was same as learning state
• Goodwin et al. study (supporting SDF) - CONCLUSION


  -forgetting more likely to occur when in different state of learning