Forgetting

• Explanations for forgetting:

  Interference occurs when the recall of one memory blocks the recall of another.

  • Retroactive - New memories block older ones.
  • Proactive - Old memories block newer ones.
• Explanations for forgetting:

  • Retroactive interference - Demonstrated by McGeoch and McDonald (1931) who found when participants were divided into 6 groups to recall different sets of words (synonyms, antonyms, words unrelated to the original list, 3 digit numbers, consonant syllables) or no new list (control), those who learnt the synonyms list experienced an average of 3.1 fewer correct items recalled compared to the control. This supports the idea that the extent of forgetting is larger when 2 memories are very similar.
• Strengths of interference:

  • Use of lab experiments - This increases the validity of the theory, due to the use of highly-controlled conditions in lab experiments, standardised instructions alongside the removal of the biasing effects of extraneous and confounding variables.
• Strengths of interference:

  • Baddeley and Hitch found that, in a group of rugby players who had to recall their last game and the number of games they’d played that season (which would be different for each player), the number of games they’d played since was more important than the total time they’d been playing for. This can be explained in terms of interference, where the more games each player had played, the more likely the memories of these newer games would interfere or block the recall of older games i.e. retroactive interference.
• Limitations of interference:

  • Studies lack mundane realism - Artificial stimuli used in these tasks, such as learning lists of random words with no personal meaning, means that the findings of interference studies are likely to have low mundane realism. This is because in real life, we are likely to learn lists of meaningful information, such as birthdays. These factors may also influence the extent of forgetting.
• Limitations of explanations for forgetting:

  • Timing - Studies are often conduced in very short spaces of time with participants recalling words 1-2 hours after they have learn t them, suggesting they lack mundane realism and reliability. This doesn't reflect the normal passage of time in everyday life where we often find that several days pass until we need to recall such information. This suggests that interference is unlikely to be a valid explanation for forgetting from the LTM.
• Explanations for forgetting:

  • Retrieval failure - Forgetting occurs when the 'cues' / triggers present at the time of encoding the information is not present at the time of recall (this describes Tulving's 'encoding specificity principle' - ESP).
• Context-dependent forgetting - Forgetting occurs when our external cues at the time of encoding do not match those present at recall.

  Godden and Baddeley (1975) - study with deep water divers where they learnt words underwater and recalled them underwater (matching conditions), compared to non-matching conditions (learnt underwater, recalled on land). Matching conditions recalling was more accurate than non-matching due to available cues.
• State-dependent forgetting - Occurs when internal cues at the time of encoding do not match those present at recall.

  
  

  Overton (1972) asked participants to learn material either drunk or sober, then to recall them drunk or sober. Recall was worse in non-matching internal conditions (eg drunk rehearsal, sober recall).
• Limitations of retrieval failure:

  • Lacks ecological validity - Baddeley argues that it is difficult to find conditions in real-life which are as polar as water and land, and thus questioned the existence of context effects in normal life. This suggests that retrieval failure may be suited to explaining cases of forgetting where the cues associated with encoding and retrieval and uncommonly distinct, so not providing an accurate depiction of forgetting in day to day life.
• Strengths for interference:

  • Supporting evidence - Schmidt (2000) investigated retroactive by using childhood street names of 11-79 year old participants. They were sent a questionnaire containing a map of the area around their old school without street names. Findings showed the more time an individual moved homes, the fewer street names they recalled, suggesting retroactive interference makes recall of older names / memories harder.
• Strengths of interference:

  • Supporting studies - Greeberg and Underwood (1950) asked participants to learn 10 paired word lists. They gave them 48hrs before recall. This was repeated 4 times. Findings showed the numbers of correctly recalled word pairs decreased due to the word pairs recalled before them. This provides evidence for proactive interference as older learnt words interfered with newer ones.