Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
explanations for forgetting - Coggle Diagram
explanations for forgetting
INTERFERENCE :speaking_head_in_silhouette:
PROactive interference - OLD MEMORIES INTERFERE with new ones (going to complete the square because you forget you can use the factorising button on the calculator?)
RETROactive interference - NEW MEMORIES INTERFERE with old ones (we don't think of IT with mr gupta when we think of b3, we think of history with denise)
RETRIEVAL FAILURE :pregnant_woman:
real-world interference :muscle:
Baddeley + Hitch <3 (1977)
:rugby_football:
players were asked to recall names of teams played during the rugby season
number of intervening games varied due to players injuries
players who played the most games had the most interference and therefore the worst recall :disappointed:
validity is increased because the study can be applied to real-world situations
counterpoint :!!:
retrieval failure is a better explanation for forgetting
conditions necessary for interference are quite rare and therefore it may not happen often in real life
limitation :-1:
Gooden + Baddeley <3 (1980) tested recognition instead of recall :water_polo: in the diver study
participants had to say if they recognised a word instead of recalling them
there was no context-dependent effect, performance
retrieval failure may only apply to people recalling, but not when they are recognising
cues - limitation :-1:
Tulving + Psotka (1971)
gave participants different categorised lists (they were not told the categories); recall gradually got worse with more lists (proactive interference)
when given cues, performance rose again
interference is just a temporary loss of access to LTM material
interference is temporary - can be overcome by cues
research supports :muscle:
Gooden + Baddeley, Carter + Cassaday studies show that a lack of relevant cues at recall lead to forgetting
counterpoint :!!:
Baddeley (1997) argues context doesn't have a very strong effect
the different contexts have to be very different before a change is seen so retrieval failure does not actually explain much about forgetting
Eysenck + Keane (2010) are memory researchers, they argue retrieval failure is the most significant explanation for forgetting in LTM
real-world application :muscle:
Baddeley suggests that cues are worth paying attention to despite them not having a huge effect on forgetting
when you go to grab your keys :old_key: and you get to your room and forget :face_with_rolling_eyes: so you go back to where you were before and you remember :+1:
Geoch and McDonald (1931) - interference
participants had to learn 10 words until 100% accuracy
there were six different groups, five were given new lists to learn and one was a control group (rested)
studying retroactive interference and how similarity of material can effect it
then they were tested on the old list again, the most similar words produced the worst recall
retrieval failure research
there are meaningful and non-meaningful cues
:house_with_garden::cloud: context-dependent forgetting - recall depends on external context/cues (weather/scenery)
:cry::wine_glass:state-dependent forgetting - recall depends on internal cues (mood, drunk)
non-meaningful cues:
Gooden + Baddeley <3 (1975) :water_polo:
four conditions: learn underwater, recall underwater; learn underwater, recall on land; learn on land, recall underwater; learn on land, recall on land (you get the picture)
so there's two conditions where external context changes from encoding :arrow_right: retrieval, and two where it doesn't
divers were given words to learn either underwater or on land
accurate recall was lower by 40% in non-matching conditions, so external cues changing leads to retrieval failure
encoding specificity principle - a cue has to be present when material is learned (encoding) + present when we recall it (retrieval)
Tulving (1983) :point_down:
Carter + Cassaday (1998) :pill:
basically same idea as the diver study but the two different conditions are: with antihistamine drug and without
performance was much worse with the mismatched internal states, so lack of cues does cause more forgetting
:pill: support from drug studies :smoking:
Coenen +Luijtelaar (1997) :muscle:
participants were given a list of words to learn and later asked to recall a list (interference in between)
compared with control group, participants that took the drug after learning the words did better
compared with control group (no drug), participants that learned words under influence of the drug performed worse
Wixted (2004) suggested the drug stops new information from reaching parts of the brain where information is processed, it therefore cannot retroactively interfere with stored information
when interference is reduced, forgetting is reduced