Explanations for Forgetting

• Interference- when 2 pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in 'forgetting' 1 or both pieces of information, or distortion of memory. Makes it harder to locate memories, since we have lost access to them.
• Proactive interference- when an old memory interferes with the retrieval of an newer one (remembering your old phone number rather than your new one)
• Retroactive interference- when a newer memory interferes with the retrieval of an old one (not being able to remember your old address after moving to a new house)
• Effects of similarity- interference is more likely to occur if the new and old memories are similar (supported by McGeoch and McDonald)
• McGeoch and McDonald (1931):

  • Studied retroactive interference by changing how similar two sets of word lists were in a lab experiment
  • Pps learnt 10 words with 100% accuracy, then learnt a new list. 6 groups of pps who learnt different types of words.
  • Pps were asked to recall the original list- most similar words had the worst recall, least similar words had the best recall.
  • Suggests interference is strongest when the interfering info is similar to the intended info.
• Evaluation of interference:

  • Able to improve recall techniques- best way to improve is to study different topics, in order to be able to remember them
  • Low theoretical value- artificial stimuli and task has low mundane realism, which decreases external validity. Therefore, the tasks aren't reflective of real memory.
• Retrieval failure- forgetting from LTM, due to lack of accessibility of the memories since cues which were present during the encoding of information are not present at the time of retrieval
• Tulving & Pearlstone (1966)

  • Pps learnt 48 words belonging to 12 categories, which were all presented together (e.g. fruit: apple)
  • 2 different recall conditions- free recall (40% correct recall of the words) and cued recall (60% correct recall of the words)
  • This proves that cues which are encoded at the time of learning which have a meaningful link to the information can help recall
• Context-dependent forgetting- recall is dependent on the external cues. If the environment when info is encoded is different to the environment when info is retrieved, it will be harder to recall (due to lack of cues). Supported by Godden & Baddeley
• Godden & Baddeley (1975):

  • Studied deep sea divers to see if training on land helped their work underwater or not
  • 18 divers (5 female, 13 male) leant a list of words underwater or on land, and were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land
  • Recall was 40% lower when the environments for learning and recall weren't the same
  • Suggests retrieval failure is due to absence of cues which were present during encoding
• Evaluation of Godden and Baddeley (1975):

  • Has high ecological validity- normal setting (for divers)
  • Low population validity- doesn't use an equal sample of men and women, so it is less generalisable since it doesn't replicate the real population
  • Low external validity- artificial task which lowers mundane realism, meaning it will be harder to generalise the findings
  • Limited application- context effects aren't as strong in everyday settings (Baddeley) so there is no application for everyday people
• State-dependent forgetting- recall depends on internal cues. If the emotional/ physical state during encoding is different to the state you are in during recall, it will be more difficult to recall info. Supported by Carter & Cassaday
• Carter & Cassaday (1998):

  • Antihistamine drugs given to pps to make them drowsy- created an internal physiological state which is different to normal
  • Pps learnt a word list and passages of prose either on the drug or not, then recalled the list either on the drug or not
  • When internal state was different during learning and recall, performance on the memory test was worse
  • Suggests that when state-dependent cues are absent, there's an increased chance of forgetting
• Evaluation of Carter & Cassaday (1998):

  • High control of variables- increases internal validity as it is more replicable and therefore more reliable
  • Higher chance of demand characteristics- pps are aware that theyre part of a study, might cause them to change their behaviour (decreasing internal validity)
  • Low mundane realism- task doesn't reflect real life behaviour, therefore it is harder to generalise the findings