Names/ studies

• McGeoch and McDonald:

  PPs given a list of words practiced until could recall with 100% accuracy

  Then given second list of words, sometimes totally unrelated e.g. list of numbers

  Others given a second list that contained synonyms of the first

  When asked to recall first list (previously recalled accurately) - found that those who had learned synonyms in second significantly impaired - down to 12%
• What percentage of first list words could those given a second list of synonyms remember in McGeoch and McDonald's study?

  12%
• Baddeley and Hitch:

  investigated interference in sport

  Tested ruby players' memory of the names of teams had played against in previous season

  Crucially, had played in different numbers of games - injury/ left out of team

  Found that players who played in fewer games recalled proportionately more names than those who had played in most games

  Researchers attributed this to interference
• Chandler?

  states that students who studied similar subjects at same time often experience interference - generalised to true scenarios - more construct validity than lab experiments
• Baddeley?

  states that the tasks given to PPs in interference experiments are too close together and, in real life; these kinds of events are more spaced out
• Anderson?

  How much forgetting can be attributed to interference remains unclear - used in limited scope
• Tulving and Psotka?

  found that interference disappears when PPs given cued recall i.e. given clues such as names of categories of words asked to remember

  concluded that words had not actually been replaced as interference suggests but had been forgotten due to retrieval failure (accessibility)
• Godden and Baddeley

  word recall test (36 words)

  4 conditions

  lab experiment bc done in controlled conditions

  used 18 Scottish Scuba divers

  learn under water - recall under water

  learn under water - recall on land

  Learn on land - recall on land

  learn on land - recall under water

  expected same conditions for both to give best recall - best should be dry dry as most accurate to real life
• Wet wet - 13.4%

  wet dry - 8.6%

  dry dry - 18.5%

  dry wet - 8.5%

  40% better recall when learning and recall environment the same
• Carter and Cassaday: gave antihistamine drugs (for treating hay fever) to their PPs - had mild sedative effect making PPs slightly drowsy. This created an internal physiological state different from the 'normal' state of being awake and alert

  PPs had to learn lists of words and passages of prose and then recall the information again creating 4 conditions:

  learn on drug - recall when on drug

  learn on drug - recall when not on drug

  learn not on drug - recall when on drug

  learn not on drug - recall when not on drug
• In conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance on memory test was significantly worse - so when cues are absent (e.g. drowsy when recalling info but had been alert learning it) then there is more forgetting
• Godden and Baddeley studied deep-sea divers who work underwater - see if training on land helped or hindered work underwater. In 2 conditions - environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, whereas in other 2 did not. Accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditiona
• What did Godden and Baddeley conclude?

  that the external cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall and this led to retrieval failure
• Goodwin?

  Found that people who drank a lot often forget where they have put things when they are sober. However could recall the locations when they are drunk again
• Miles and Hardman:

  Found that people who learned a list of words while exercising on an exercise bike remembered them better when exercising rather than at rest
• Evaluation of Godden and Baddeley:

  1. low ecological validity - unusual place to revise/learn
  2. lab experiment - can repeat/ replicable
  3. small sample - cannot be generalised
  4. scientific - lots of controls in place
  5. construct validity - not real life task
• Evaluation of Carter and Cassaday:

  1. more applicable than G and B - more valid representation of retrieval failure - could happen in real life
  2. reliable - controlled drug/ dosage used and words learnt
  3. ethical issues - giving drugs - could have side effects - PPs will have consented
• Evaluation of Goodwin:

  1. lab exp - controlled what items/ how drunk PPs were
  2. unethical - cause harm (alcohol)
  3. applicable - people do get drunk - high ecological validity
• Evaluation of Miles and Hardman:

  1. lab exp - controlled
  2. low ecological validity - don't revise on bike usually
  3. not very applicable
• Both are slightly reductionist

  1. interference ignores cues from environment and internal cues
  2. retrieval failure ignores effects of other memories