Explanations for forgetting

• Interference - An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another
• Proactive interference (PI) - When previously learned information interferes with learning new material, e.g., when older adults find it difficult to remember names because they have already learnt so many.
• Retroactive interference - current attempts to learn something interfere with past learning
• Baddely and Hitch (1977) investigated interference affects among rugby players by asking them to recall the names of the teams they had played against over the rugby season. Some players played all games while others missed some due to injury. The time interval from start to finish of the season was the same for all player but the number of intervening games was different for each player if they missed games.

  They found that players who played less games, recalled more which supports the interference theory
• Retroactive interference examples:

  • your forget your old phone number as the new one has replaced it
  • You forget how to drive a manual car as you have been driving an automatic for so long
• Proactive interference examples:

  • you struggle to learn Spanish as you get muddled with previously learn french vocabulary
  • you struggle to learn your new phone number as you keep recalling your old phone number
• Support for interference:

  • Postman (1960) - Learning items in a second list interfered with PPs ability to recall the first list
  • Baddely and Hitch (1977) - rugby players who had played every game were more likely to forget matches as the later games had interfered with recall of the earlier matches
• Postman (1960) - was carried out in a lab so lacks ecological validity but can easily be replicated
• Interference doesnt explain why we remember things like our own name or birthdate despite being exposed to lots of information since childhood
•  Baddely and Hitch (1977) used real situations and memories of actual games so this is high in ecological validity
• Postman (1960) - Aim:

  How retroactive interference affects learning
• Postman (1960) - procedure:

  • 2 groups of PPs (control and experimental)
  • both groups given words to learn (e.g. dog-bread)
  • the experimental group was also given a second list to learn where the second word was changed (dog-cake)
  • Both groups were then asked to recall the original list
• Postman (1960) - Results:

  The recall of the control group was much better than the experimental group
• Conclusion:

  The experimental groups recall had been affected by retroactive interference
• Postman (1960) - Evaluation:

  Benefits:

  • reliable (easy to replicate)
  • RLA for education (revision)

  Drawbacks:

  • lacks ecological validity (not everyday task)
  • interference only explains similar information
• Interference Theory Evaluation - PEELs

  1. Strength - Supporting Study - Postman (1960)
  2. Limitation - lacks external validity
  3. Strength - Support from real life studies
  4. Limitation - Not a full explanation as only applies to similar information
• Interference Theory PEEL 2:

  Weakness - Lacks external validity - lab experiments don't reflect real day-to-day life so can’t be generalised to real life situations

  • reduces scientific credibility
• Interference Theory PEEL 1:

  Strength - supporting study - Postman et al (1960) - Recall can be affected by retroactive interference
• Interference Theory PEEL 3:

  Strength - evidence from interference research is collected from everyday situations - Baddely and Hitch (1977) asked Rugby teams who they had played during the season

  • provides external validity
• Interference Theory PEEL 4:

  Weakness - interference theory isn’t a full explanation - It can only be applied to chunks of information that is similar so can’t explain all aspects of forgetting
• Tulving (1983) reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern to the findings. he named this pattern encoding specificity principle.
• Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) - states that if a cue is to helps us recall information it has to present at encoding and retrieval. Therefore, if the cues present at encoding and retrieval are different then forgetting will occur
• Some cues are linked to the info in a meaningful way and some cues are just encoded at the time of learning but not in a meaningful way
• Encoding Specificity Principle - Tulving (1983)

  • cues must be present when the memory is encoded
  • E.G. The smell of hand sanitizer detected before eating a meal (SK)
  • E.G. The smell of hand sanitizer reminding you of that meal
• Cue Dependent retrieval failure happens when you cannot access a memory in LTM as there are no cues to help you
• A cue is any stimulus which can prompt a memory, for example a smell or song that reminds you of a memory
• The cue provides the context required to retrieve the memory
• Context Dependent Forgetting: Research Support = Baddely and Godden (1975)
• Context Dependent - Godden and Baddely (1975):

  Aim:

  To investigate the effects of context cues on recall
• Context Dependent - Godden and Baddely (1975):

  Procedure:

  Studied deep sea divers to see if training on land helped or hindered their work underwater. The divers learnt a list of words either underwater or on land and then were asked to recall the words either underwater or on land.

  1. Learn on Land - Recall on Land
  2. Learn on Land - recall under water
  3. Learn under water - recall on Land
  4. Learn under water - recall under water
• Context Dependent - Godden and Baddely (1975):

  Results:

  • In 2 of these conditions the environmental contexts of learning and recall matched, but in the other two they did not. Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions
  • Words learned underwater were better recalled underwater and words learned on land were better recalled on land
• Context Dependent - Godden and Baddely (1975):

  Conclusion:

  • The external cues available at learning were different from the ones available at recall and this led to retrieval failure
  • context is key for retrieval
• Baddely and Godden (1975) Sample:

  18 PPs (13 males and 5 females) from a university diving club
• State dependant forgetting was researched by Carter and Cassaday (1998)
• State Dependent Forgetting - Carter and Cassidy (1998):

  Aim:

  To investigate recall using anti-histamine drugs (would the sedative [sleepy] effect of the drug be needed for retrieval?)
• State Dependent Forgetting - Carter and Cassidy (1998)

  Results:

  • Showed that memory was better when learning and recall state matched (e.g. learning and recalling on antihistamine)
  • Forgetting occurred more when the states did not match
• State Dependent Forgetting - Carter and Cassidy (1998)

  Conclusion:

  If the physical/psychological/emotional state someone is in when they learn information is replicated then memory is more likely to be better than when the states differ
• Retrieval theory evaluation PEELs:

  1. Strength - Supporting Study - Carter and Cassaday or Godden and Baddely
  2. Weakness - ethical issues - dangerous/risky sport
  3. Weakness - depends on the type of memory being tested
  4. Strength - Wide range of research support
• Retrieval theory evaluation PEEL 1:

  Strength - Supporting Studies - Carter and Cassaday or Godden and Baddely
• Retrieval theory evaluation PEEL 2:

  Weakness - ethical issues as diving is a dangerous/risky sport and there may be negative impacts from taking drugs