Explanations of Forgetting

• Key point:

  • phrase the answer in terms as to why forgetting happens more, rather than why remembering happens less
• Interference theory:

  • this theory suggests that we forget when we are trying to retrieve information but similar information happens to get in the way/interfere

  this involves;

  • proactive interference
  • retroactive interference
• Proactive interference:

  • this is when old information interferes with new information
  • for example, you have just moved house and have placed an online order but have accidentally gave the delivery driver your old address
• Retroactive interference:

  • this is when new information interferes with old information
  • for example, when you have to update your C.V. and you have to list previous addresses, you may forget your old postcodes
• Evaluation of interference theory:

  S - Baddeley and Hitch's rugby study

  S - McGeoch and McDonald's syllable study

  W - individual differences in proactive interference

  S - practical applications - aiding revision by avoiding similar material
• Baddeley and Hitch's rugby study:

  • Baddeley and Hitch found that rugby players who had played more games in the season made more mistakes when trying to remember the opponents from earlier in the season, in comparison with players who had missed games through injury, illness or suspension
  • the players who had played more games were suffering from retroactive interference as the names of the more recent opponents were interfering with the names of the opponents from earlier in the season
• Support from Baddeley and Hitch's rugby study (identify):

  • there is evidence to support the role of interference from the Baddeley and Hitch study on rugby players
• Support from Baddeley and Hitch's rugby study (explain):

  • Baddeley and Hitch found that rugby players who had played more games in the season made more mistakes when trying to remember the opponents from earlier on in the season, in comparison with players who had missed games through injury, illness or suspension
  • the players who had played more games were suffering from retroactive interference as the names of the more recent opponents were interfering with the names of the opponents from earlier in the season
• Support from Baddeley and Hitch's rugby study (conclusion):

  • this study supports the interference explanation of forgetting because it provides empirical evidence of retroactive interference using real-life memories from a natural experiment , meaning findings are high in ecological validity
  • this adds validity to the fact that new information can disrupt older information
• McGeoch and McDonald's syllable study:

  • McGeoch and McDonald found that when participants had to learn 2 different word lists then the memory of the first word list was worse when the second word list was more similar
  • when the second set of words were synonyms to the first word list forgetting rates were 88%, whereas when the second world list was composed of nonsense syllables, the forgetting rate was lower (74%) and when the second word list was composed of digits then the forgetting rate was even lower (63%)
  • the similar synonyms in the second word list provide retroactive interference to the first word list
• Support from McGeoch and McDonald's syllable study (identify):

  • there is evidence to support the importance of similarity from McGeoch and McDonald
• Support from McGeoch and McDonald's syllable study (explain):

  • McGeoch and McDonald found that when participants had to learn 2 different words lists then the memory of the first word list was worse when the second word list was more similar
  • when the second set of words were synonyms to the first word list forgetting was 88%, whereas when the second word list was composed of nonsense syllables the forgetting rate was 74% and when the second word list was composed of digits the forgetting rate was even lower (63%)
• Support from McGeoch and McDonald's syllable study (conclusion):

  • this study supports the interference explanation of forgetting as it provides empirical evidence that forgetting happens more when there is similar information provided that interferes
  • However this is a lab experiment so lacks ecological validity (memorising word lists is not an everyday task)
• Kane and Engle (2000):

  • Kane and Engle (2000) tested participants' working memories and then gave them a memory task involving proactive interference
  • those with a greater working memory were less affected by the interference from the similar material
• Criticism - individual differences in proactive interference (identify):

  • one problem with interference theory is that it cannot account for individual differences
• Criticism - individual differences in proactive interference (explain):

  • research has shown that people with a better working memory are less affected by proactive interference
  • Kane and Engle (2000) tested participant's working memories and then gave them a memory task involving proactive interference
  • those with a greater working memory were less affected by the interference from the similar material
• Criticism - individual differences in proactive interference (conclusion):

  • this is important because it shows that proactive interference does not affected everyone in the same way
  • there must be more research done to investigate all factors that influence forgetting
  • this explanation lacks explanatory power and alternative theories should be looked at (retrieval failure)
• Practical applications - aiding revision by avoiding similar material (identify):

  • one strength of this theory is that there are practical applications for improving revision strategies
• Practical applications - aiding revision by avoiding similar material (explain):

  • when revising for exams students should avoid revising similar material
  • for example, students who study both French and Spanish should avoid revising these topics at similar times
  • as they are very similar in their vocabulary and structure, some interference may occur and so it is better to space their studies
• Practical applications - aiding revision by avoiding similar material (conclusion):

  • this is important as it means that students can use this explanation of forgetting to aid their examination performance and achieve better grades, helping them to attain better qualifications and potentially earn more money for the economy
• Retrieval cue failure:

  • this explanation has been built on the encoding-specificity principle
  • Tulving suggested that memory is most effective if information that was present at encoding (the learning stage) was also available at the time of retrieval (the testing stage)
  • forgetting happens when the cues available at encoding (learning stage) and retrieval (testing stage) are different

  this can be split into two types of cue-dependent forgetting;

  • state dependent retrieval
  • context dependent retrieval
• State dependent retrieval failure:

  this form of forgetting looks at the absence of internal cues. These may include;

  • mood
  • health levels
  • tiredness levels
  • alcohol consumption
  • use of recreational drugs

  for example, someone who had a conversation with their friends in the pub after several pints of Guinness may forget about that particular conversation until a few weeks later when they are drinking Guinness at home
• Context dependent retrieval failure:

  this form of forgetting looks at the absence of external cues. These may include;

  • the weather
  • the location
  • the smells available
  • songs that are playing

  for example, you may forget about an ex girlfriend or boyfriend for years and then when you brush past someone wearing the same perfume or aftershave those memories may come flooding back. The smell has acted as a retrieval cue that you don't normally have access to
• Evaluation of retrieval cue failure:

  S - support from Godden and Baddeley's diver study

  S - support from Goodwin's alcohol study

  W - criticism of Godden and Baddeley's evidence

  S - practical applications - revision
• Support from Godden and Baddeley's diver study (identify):

  • there is evidence in support of retrieval failure from the Godden and Baddeley scuba diver study
• Support from Godden and Baddeley's diver study (explain):

  • Godden and Baddeley found that deep sea divers who were tested on a list of words in a different place to where they had learnt them (either on land or underwater) forgot more than divers who had been tested in the same place as they had learnt them suggesting that forgetting was occurring due to a lack of contextual cues from the environment where the information was learned
• Support from Godden and Baddeley's diver study (conclusion):

  • this field experiment supports retrieval cue failure as it provides empirical evidence for the role of retrieval failure and the encoding specificity principle in forgetting
  • however, it does lack ecological validity
• Criticism of Godden and Baddeley's evidence (identify):

  • one criticism of the explanation is that in real life we do not have drastically different contexts that affect recall
• Criticism of Godden and Baddeley's evidence (explain):

  • the Godden and Baddeley finding shows that in extremely different contexts (learning on land and being tested underwater) forgetting is more likely
  • however, Baddeley himself has argued that in real life we are unlikely to be placed in situations where the learning context differs so much from the retrieval context (learning in a classroom and then being examined in an exam hall is less likely to lead to a dramatic loss in retrieval cues)
• Criticism of Godden and Baddeley's evidence (conclusion):

  • this is a problem with the retrieval cue failure explanation because the study lacks ecological validity and that in real life retrieval failure is less likely to cause context dependent forgetting
• Support from Goodwin's alcohol study (identify):

  • there is evidence to support the retrieval failure explanation from Goodwin et al's study (1969) alcohol study
• Support from Goodwin's alcohol study (explain):

  • males learned word lists either sober or under the influence (3x the drink driving limit in the UK)
  • they were tested either in the same state or a different state
  • Goodwin found that participants forgot more if they were tested in a different state to the one in which they were when they learned the lists
  • this suggests that they did not have the internal retrieval cues to aid recall and prevent forgetting
• Support from Goodwin's alcohol study (conclusion):

  • this is important because it provides empirical evidence for the role of internal retrieval cues in state dependent forgetting
• Positive practical applications for revision (identify):

  • a strength of the retrieval failure explanation of forgetting is that is provides practical applications for revision
• Positive practical applications for revision (explain):

  • the encoding specificity principle suggests that forgetting happens when there is an absence of retrieval cues available at the time of encoding (learning) at the time of retrieval (testing)
  • therefore, students can use this to their advantage by increasing the number of retrieval cues available in the exam hall. They could do this by using the same pen for revision as they use in the exam, wearing the same perfume throughout (external cues) or listening to the same uplifting some before revision and on the way to the exam to et them in the right mood (internal cues)
• Positive practical applications for revision (conclusion):

  • this is important because it shows that the explanation has good ecological validity and is useful in the real world in helping students do well in their examinations which in turn may benefit the economy