forgetting

• Interference

  The ways in which information is lost from long-term memory
• Interference


  When one memory prevents the retrieval of another memory; it gets in the way
• Types of interference

  • Retroactive
  • Proactive
• Interference can occur when learning or memories are similar
• Retroactive interference

  A new memory interferes with an old memory
• Retroactive interference

  • Forgetting old phone number due to new number
  • Forgetting how to drive manual car due to driving automatic
• Proactive interference


  An old memory interferes with a new memory
• Proactive interference

  • Struggling to learn Spanish due to previously learned French
  • Struggling to learn new phone number due to old number
• Postman (1960): 'Learning items in a second list interfered with participants' ability to recall the first list i.e. retroactive interference'
• Baddeley and Hitch (1977): 'Rugby players who had played every game were more likely to forget matches: the later games had interfered with a recall of the earlier matches i.e. retroactive interference'
• McGeoch and McDonald (1931): 'Participants who were given synonyms had the worst recall as it was likely the memory for the original list had not been interfered with i.e. interference is more likely to occur when memories are similar'
• Postman (1960) and McGeoch and McDonald (1931) were carried out in a lab so lack ecological validity but it can be easily replicated
• Baddeley and Hitch (1977) used real situations and memories of actual games so this is high in ecological validity and accounts for time taken between learning
• McGeoch and McDonald (1931) may lack temporal validity (getting on for 100 years old!) and cannot account for the role taken by technology in how we now remember information
• Cue-dependent retrieval failure

  When you cannot access a memory in LTM as there are no cues to help you
• Cue

  • Any stimulus which can prompt a memory
• Cues

  • The 'Fun Song Factory' theme tune
  • The smell of cleaning fluid
  • A bright red leather jacket
• Encoding specificity principle (ESP)

  Cues must be present when the memory is encoded so that the same cues at retrieval will trigger the memory
• Cues not available at retrieval

  Forgetting may happen
• Context-dependent forgetting experiment

  1. Learning words on land/recalling on land

  2. Learning words on land/recalling underwater

  3. Learning underwater/recalling underwater

  4. Learning underwater/recalling on land
• Words learned underwater were better recalled underwater and words learned on land were better recalled on land
• State-dependent forgetting


  A person's state (e.g. emotional, drunk, drugged, ill) is a factor in forgetting
• State-dependent forgetting experiment


  1. Learning + anti‐histamine/recall + anti‐histamine

  2. Learning without anti‐histamine/recalling without anti‐histamine

  3. Learning + anti‐histamine/recalling without anti‐histamine

  4. Learning without anti‐histamine/recall + anti‐histamine
• Memory was better when learning and recall state matched (e.g. learning/recalling + anti-histamine); forgetting occurred more when the states did not match (e.g. learning + anti-histamine/recalling without)
• Strengths of retrieval failure research

  • The use of experiments with standardised procedures means that research in this field is likely to be reliable
  • The theory has good application to school settings e.g. students should sit exams in the same room in which the material was learnt to optimise recall of information
• Weaknesses of retrieval failure research

  • The diver participants in Godden & Baddeley's study were exposed to a whole host of cues which means that their findings cannot be said to be a true reflection of the IV's effect on the DV
  • There are ethical issues with both studies: diving is a risky sport and people can have adverse reactions to anti-histamine drugs