Explanations for forgetting

• Explanations for forgetting:

  • When we forget because one memory gets in the way of another.
  • The information conflicts with one another.
  • This causes one, or both memories to be distorted or forgotten.
  • Psychologists recognise that there are two ways in which information can interfere with one another.
  • There is either proactive interference or retroactive interference.
• Interference:

  • Proactive Interference: Forgetting occurs when past information gets in the way of current memories.
  • Retroactive Interference: Forgetting occurs when recent memories get in the way of older memories.
  • Interference is much more likely when things are similar.
  • This was investigated by McGeough and McDonald.
• McGeough and McDonald:

  • Found that forgetting would largely depend on the type of second list given.
  • Most similar material produced the worst recall (synonyms group1).
  • This shows that they were impacted by interference the most.
• Interference Theory: Evaluation: Strength:

  • Validity due to lab experiments.
  • McGeough and McDonald showed using several world lists that interference is more likely when the second list is similar.
  • They discovered that the synonyms group found the second list the most difficult to remember.
  • Further to this replicability, it is also valid because the lab experiments controlled the effects of irrelevant influences and extraneous variables.
  • This shows objective evidence.
• Interference Theory: Evaluation: Strength:

  • Another strength of the interference theory is that it is highly applicable to a real-life setting.
  • For example, Baddeley and Hitch conducted research to depict that interference is a better explanation than the passage of time. In their study, they asked rugby players to remember the names of opposing teams over a season.
  • They concluded that the accurate recall of team names did not depend on how long ago they played, but whether there were interfering games in between.
  • For example, if they had not played a match since the last team 3 weeks ago – they were more likely to remember the name. o
  • This is seen through Burke and Skrull’s study.
  • Some ppts were shown similar adverts (causing interference), while others saw different ones.
  • This suggests that interference occurs in an everyday setting such as sport, and that interference can be a more valid explanation of forgetting than the time.
• Interference Theory: Evaluation: Weakness:

  • However, one can argue that the interference theory is weak because McGeough and McDonald’s study uses artificial stimuli in an artificial laboratory environment.
  • From using a stimulus material such as a word list, it could be viewed as being far different to what we learn in real life.
  • This is because it is very rare to learn a list of random words and recall them immediately.
  • Furthermore, the participants were given a very brief time frame to learn their lists.
  • As a result, the findings only conclude that interference causes forgetting in the short-term memory, not the long-term memory.
  • Therefore, their research findings may not be applicable to explaining interference in relation to more everyday uses of memory.
• Retrieval failure

  • An explanation of forgetting that occurs when we don't have the necessary cues to access memory.
• How does retrieval failure work?

  • When we encode a new memory, we also store information that occurs around it.
  • If we cannot recall it, it may be because we are not in a similar situation to when the memory was originally stored.
  • It is available, but not accessible.
• Tulving and Pearlstone:

  • Suggested that the greater the similarity between the encoding event, and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory.
  • A cue must be present at the point of encoding and retrieval.
• Context dependant cues:

  • External cues
  • Things in your environment
• Context Cues: Godden and Baddeley (1975):

  • Aimed to investigate the effect of environmental context on memory recall.
  • 18 divers learnt a list of 36 unrelated words either on land, or underwater.
  • Conditions:
  • Learn on land – Recall on land
  • Learn on land – Recall underwater
  • Learn underwater – Recall underwater
  • Learn underwater – Recall on land
• Godden and Baddeley: Findings:

  • Recall was significantly better when the learning and retrieval environments matched.
  • Accuracy was 40% lower when the conditions didn't match.
  • Supports context-dependant memory.
• State Dependant Cues:

  • Internal cues
  • Emotions
  • Goodwin et al (1969) found that participants who had hidden money or alcohol when drunk were only able to find the items when drunk again.
• State Dependant Cues: Carter and Cassaday (1998):

  • Aimed to investgate the effects of state-dependant memory by examining how internal states influenced memory recall in humans.
  • Participants were given an antihistimane drug, or a placebo.
  • Divided into 4 conditions:
  • Same state learning and recall: drug both times.
  • Same state learning and recall: placebo both times.
  • Different state learning and recall: Antihistimanes before, and placebo after (and vice-versa).
• Carter and Cassaday: Findings:

  • Participants who had the same internal state during learning and recall (conditions 1 and 2) performed better than those who had different internal states (conditions 3 and 4).
  • This supported the idea that memory retrieval is better when the internal state at recall matches the internal state during learning (state-dependent memory).
• Retrieval failure: Cues: Evaluation: Strength

  • Strength:
  • Participants who had the same internal state during learning and recall (conditions 1 and 2) performed better than those who had different internal states (conditions 3 and 4).
  • This supported the idea that memory retrieval is better when the internal state at recall matches the internal state during learning (state-dependent memory).
• Retrieval failure: Cues: Strength:

  • Research evidence supports retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting.
  • Godden & Baddeley (1975) found that divers who recalled words in the same environment they learned them (land or underwater) remembered more.
  • This supports context-dependent forgetting — environmental cues aid retrieval.
  • However, word-list tasks in artificial settings lack ecological validity, so findings may not generalise to everyday memory use.
• Retrieval failure: Cues: Weakness:

  • A limitation is that retrieval failure theory can’t always be empirically tested.
  • If a memory isn't recalled, it's unclear whether it’s due to lack of cues or whether the memory was never stored. - This makes the theory unfalsifiable and less scientifically robust than other explanations.
  • Even so, consistent findings across multiple studies (e.g., Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966) still offer strong empirical support.
  • While it may lack falsifiability, evidence-based support keeps retrieval failure a credible explanation.