Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Memory Summary PT.2 (Misleading Information (Description (Leading…

- - - - Retroactive interference - new interferes with old
      - Muller and Pilzecker - recall was less good if there was an intervening task (describing paintings).
      - Proactive interference - old interferes with new.
      - Underwood - analysed many studies, the more lists learned the lower percentage of recall
      - McGeoch and McDonald - learn list of words + list of synonyms -- 12% recall, learn lists of words + list of digits -- 37% recall. Similarity matters.
      - Baddeley and Hitch - ruby players who played fewer games had better recall of teams played against (less interference).
    - - Artificial research - words and nonsense syllables, and low motivation. Doesn't represent everyday memory.
      - Limited to some situations of forgetting, where two sets of stimuli are quite similar.
      - Ceraso - spontaneous recovery of recognition memory after interference suggest memories are available but not accessible.
    - - Real-world application - competing advertisements reduce their effect because of interference, better to show three in one day (Danaher et al.).
      - Individual differences - people with greater working memory span less susceptible to proactive interference (Kane and Eagle).
  - - - Encoding specificity principle - material present at encoding is present at retrieval (Tulving and Thomson).
      - Tulving and Pearlstone - category + world learned. Free recall was 40% cued recall was 60%
      - Some cues are mot meaningfully linked at encoding but also act as cues
      - Context-dependent forgetting: Abernethy - recall best with same instructor in same room
      - State-dependent forgetting: Goodwin et al. - recall best when inital state (drunk or sober) matched state at recall
    - - High validity - wealth of supporting research evidence both in lab and natural environments
      - Real-world application - to revising and the cognitive interview
      - Cues don't always work - not useful when learning meaningful material (Smith and Vela).
    - - Encoding specificity is circular - it is not a causal relationship (Nairne) and cannot be tested (Baddeley).
      - Retrieval failure can explain interference effects and thus is more important explanation of forgetting.