Explanations for forgetting

• explanations for forgetting

  • interference theory
  • retrieval failure
• Interference theory argues forgetting occurs due to two memories competing and being affected by past memories or possible future learning.
• proactive interference 


  occurs when old information interferes with the learning of new information

  e.g an old mobile number is recalled when trying to recall the new mobile phone number.
• Keppel and underwood (1962) 


  demonstrated proactive interference by asking participants to recall consonant trigrams after varying time intervals, they were tasked with counting backwards in threes.

  Forgetting increased after each interval however little forgetting occurred at the start. 
• retroactive interference 


  occurs when the learning of new information interferes with the recall of old information from long-term memory. e.g you learn your new mobile number but are unable to remember your old one
• Ceraso (1967) 


  suggested one possible explanation for RI was there was no actual loss of information but merely the wrong information was accessed as it had been moved.
• Muller (1900) 


  identified retroactive interference through a study where participants tasked with learning a list of syllables are given an intervening task (e.g describing paintings) between exposure to the syllables and recall.
• Retrieval failure theories argue forgetting from the long-term memory is caused by failing to access the memory due to insufficient clues or cues to aid recall rather than it being unavailable.
• retrieval failure : the cues act as markers to aid recall and without these, the mind is unable to locate the correct memory. 
• cues effectiveness depends on the number of items associated with it and similarly between information
• Tulving (1973): encoding-specificity principle

  memory retrieval is improved when the encoding context is the same as the retrieval context.
• There are two main types of cue-dependent forgetting

  • context-dependent failure
  • state-dependent failure.
• context dependent failure


  rely on external environmental retrieval cues being similar to when the information was encoded to aid recall,

  e.g. being in the same room where you learnt the answers to a test and then taking the test in this room. 
• Abernethy (1940) 


  found that after participants had learnt various material, they showed greater difficulty with recall when they were tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room compared to a familiar teacher and familiar room
• state dependent failure


  when the internal state of the person is different from when the information was encoded.

  This may be down to feeling a different emotion for example and trying to remember something when you were happy while you are feeling sad. 
• overton (1972)


  Participants learnt material either drunk or sober and found participants struggled with recall more when trying to retrieve the information in a state that is different from the time of encoding

  showing state dependent failure
• Retroactive interference was demonstrated by McGeoch and McDonald (1931), who found that when participants were divided into 6 groups to recall different lists of words and numbers or no new list (control group).

  
  

  
  

  those who'd learnt the synonyms list experienced an average of 3.1 fewer correct items recalled, compared to the control group.
• Strengths of Interference Theory

  • Real world evidence - Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall the teams they had played in the season. Those who played in the most games had the poorest recall. This shows that interference has a real world application and is valid.
  • Retrograde facilitation - Coenen and van Luijtelaar found that recall was better when the participants had been given diazepam before they had learned the words than if they had been given it after. This shows that forgetting can be due to interference and if the interference is reduced, forgetting can be too.
• Weaknesses of Interference Theory

  • Lacks ecological validity: interference in everyday settings is rare as the conditions for interference do not frequently occur. Lab studies are not reliable for testing forgetting as they are artificial and controlled settings.
  • Interference is only temporary and can be overcome by the use of cues. Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words, and added a new list each time. Recall of the first list was 70% but reduced with every list afterwards (proactive interference). When told the name of the lists, recall improved to 70% again.
• Strengths of Retrieval Failure

  • Real world application: This was used to aid in the conviction of Danielle Jones killer as a reconstruction in 2001 prompted witnesses to recall her arguing with a man which later led to the conviction of her uncle through witness testimony. Also helps in cognitive interviews
  • Research support - Baddeley’s (1975) Divers tasked with learning material either on dry land or while underwater were found to have poorer recall when they were tested on retrieval in a context that differed from learning and encoding setting
• Weaknesses of Retrieval Failure

  • Baddeley (1997) criticised the encoding specificity principle as impossible to test and verify for certain making it unscientific. It is hard to control whether a cue is encoded or not. 
  • Many studies into retrieval failure due to cue dependent forgetting are based in the laboratory and lack ecological validity and mundane realism as they don't reflect world environments or situations of forgetting
  • Explanations are not able to explain why retrieval failure cannot be explained with cue dependent forgetting for activities such as riding a bike