Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
memory p2 - Coggle Diagram
memory p2
lesson 5: explanations for forgetting - interference
A01
retroactive interference
where learning something new interferes with past learning
Muller and Pilzecker demonstrated RI by giving ppts a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 minutes and then after a retention interval ppts were asked to recall the list. performance was less good when ppts were given an intervening task between initial learning and recall (shown pics of landscapes and asked to describe them) as the intervening ask produced RI
proactive interference
when past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something new
Underwood analysed findings from a number of studies. he concluded that when ppts have to learn a series of word lists they do not learn the lists of words encountered later on in the sequence as well as the words encountered earlier on. if ppts memorised 10 or more lists after 24hrs they remembered about 20% of what they had learned but if they only learnt one list recall was over 70%. PI occurred
A03
criticisms
most of the research investigating interference is laboratory based and uses artificial lists of words/ and or nonsense syllables. the findings therefore don't relate to everyday uses of memory which tend not to involve simple words list. ppts may also lack motivation to remember the links in the studies and therefore interference effects may appear stronger than they are. lack mundane realism
interference only explains some types of forgetting. for example special conditions are required for interference to lead for forgetting - the two memories must be quite similar so for this reason interference is considered relatively unimportant for everyday forgetting. Anderson concluded that there is no doubt that interference plays a role in forgetting but how much forgetting can be attributed to interference remains unclear.
researchers have questioned whether interference effects actually cause a memory to disappear or whether interference effects are temporary. ceraso found that if memory is tested again after 24hrs recognition (accessibility) showed considerable spontaneous recovery whereas recall (availability) remained the same. this suggests that interference only occurs because memories are temporarily not accessible rather than having actually been lost
strengths
there is a considerable body of research on the effects of interference when people are exposed to adverts from competing brands in a short period of time. Danaher et al found that both recall and recognition of an advertisers message was impaired when ppts were exposed to two advertisements for competing brands in the same week. better strategy would be to run multiple exposured in one day rather than spread them out over a week as this reduces the effect of interference from competing brands.
Baddeley and Hitch investigated interference in an everyday setting using rugby players, they were asked to recall the names of the teams they had played against over a rugby season. players who played all the games in the season and therefore more 'intervening' games could recall less names of the players from opposing teams than players who had missed games even though the time period was the same for all players.
lesson 6: explanations for forgetting- retrieval failure
A01
forgetting in LTM is mainly due to retrieval failure which is the failure to find an item because you have insufficient cues.
tulving and thompson proposed the encoding specificity principle (ESP) as the idea that memory is most effective if the information that was present at the time of encoding was also available at the time of retrieval.
tulving and pearlstone found that ppts recalled 40% of the words in uncued recall and 60% of thw words when given cues to aid them.
retrieval cues can include the environmental context and/or the person's emotional state. they serve as a reminder
context dependent and state dependent forgetting
godden and baddeley investigated context dependent forgetting. they recruited scuba divers and arranged for them to learn a list of words on land or underwater. divers were then tested on land or underwater. recall was highest when initial context matched recall environment e.g land and land.
Goodiwn et al demonstrated state-dependent forgetting by asking male volunteers to memorise a list of words when they are either drunk or sober. ppts then recalled the list after 24hrs when some were sober and others drunk again. words were best recalled when initial state matched the recall state e.g drunk and drunk or sober and sober
retrieval failure occurs in the absence of cues
A03
criticisms
retrieval cues do not always work. the information you are learning in real life situations is related to more than just the cues. in most research done into retrieval cues ppts are learning word lists whereas everyday learning is more complex and much less easily triggered by single cues. this is known as the outshining hypothesis: a cues effectiveness is reduced by the presence of better cues. This was suggested by smith and vela, context effects are largely eliminated when learning meaningful material.
the relationship between encoding cues and later retrieval is a correlation rather than a cause. Narine calls this the 'myth of encoding retrieval match' baddeley also made a similar criticism, pointing out that the encoding specificity principle is impossible to test because it is circular. so cues do not necessarily cause retrieval they are just associated with retrieval so a causal relationship between encoding and retrieval cannot be established.
strengths
there has been a range of laboratory, field and natural expeirments which support the idea of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting. tulving and pearlstone demonstrated the power of retrieval cues and godden and baddeley demonstrated the importance of context-dependent learning. (also could use Abernethy). research done is highly applicable to everyday situations (especially abernethy as his is relevant in schools and revision) so the wealth of research supporting retrieval failure has high ecological validity.
applicable to everyday memory, can be used by students to improve recall when needed in situations such as exams. Abernethys research suggests that it is beneficial for students to revise in rooms that they will be taking their exams in as he found students performed better when this method was adopted as the room acts as an environmental cue, this supports the idea of context-dependent learning in everyday memory.
can be used to explain interference effects. tulving and psotka demonstrated that apparent interference effects are actually due to the absence of cues. ppts given 6 diff word lists consisting of 24 words split into 6 diff categories. some ppts were then asked to list the words with no cues and others with the category names as cues. more lists the ppts learned worse their performance became suggesting retroactive interference. however when ppts were given cued recall the effects of interference disappeared, they remembered approx 70% of words no matter the amount of lists given.
lesson 7: accuracy of eyewitness testimony - misleading information
A01
loftus and Palmer explained the effect of misleading information by showing 45 students 7 films of different traffic accidents and after each film participants were given a questionnaire which contained one critical question: 'how fast were the cars when they hit each other?' one of the groups of ppts were given this question and the other four groups were given the same question but with one of the following verbs: 'smashed/collided/bumped/contacted'
they found that ppts who were given the verb 'smashed' reported an average speed of 40.8mph in comparison to ppts who were given the verb 'contacted' who reported 31.8mph
post event discussion and the conformity effect
the memory of an event may also be altered through discussing events with others and/or questioned multiple times
Gabbert et al showed pairs of ppts where each partner watched a different video of the same event so that they viewed unique items, the pairs in one condition were encouraged to discuss the event before individually recalling what they had witnessed and they found that 71% of witnesses who had discussed the event went onto mistakenly recall items acquired during the discussion
repeat interviewing
each time an eyewitness is interviewed, there is a possibility that comments from their interviewer will become incorporated into their recollection of events
it is also the case that an interviewer may use leading questions and thus alter the individuals memory for events (especially for children being interviewed about a crime)
A03
strengths
criticisms