Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
What is forgetting?
|
- Failure to retrieve memories from the LTM store. - May be due to lack of accessibility. |
|
|
|
What is interference and state the 2 types?
|
When one set of info competes w/ another causing it to be 'overwritten' or physically destroyed. 1. Proactive Interference 2. Retroactive Interference |
|
|
|
Outline Proactive Interference
|
When an old memory trace disrupts new info. E.G Getting a new number but you keep saying the old one. |
|
|
|
Outline Retroactive Interference
|
When new info disrupts old info. E.G When you use a new password and you start to forget the old one. |
|
|
|
Research Support for Interference: Underwood et al - Paired Associate Technique
|
- Pp's in retroactive had the poorest recall than those in than pp's in proactive condition. - They frequently recalled the wrong paired-associate = that new memory traces are interfering w/ old memory traces. - Proactive interference was demonstrated through pp's having greater difficulty recalling A-C list than control group = Shows new memories are difficult to make b/c old info interferes w/ new memories. Conclusion -Retroactive interference & proactive interference can both occur. - Retroactive interference is stronger (causes worst recall). |
|
|
|
Strength of Interference Theory: Lots of Research Support
|
- Thousands of experiments have been carried out into this explanation for forgetting - such as Underwood's study of learning paired associate words. - Concluded that retroactive & proactive interference can both occur. - Both types of interference are likely to be common ways we forget info from LTM. - Strength b/c we can draw valid conclusions = gives us confidence that interference is an explanation for forgetting. |
- 1000s of experiments - Underwood - What did he conclude? - They are both ways of... - Why is this a strength?
|
|
|
Strength of Interference Theory: Application to Real World
|
- Danaher et al found that both recall & recognition of an advertiser's message were impaired when pp's were exposed to 2 adverts for competing brands within a week. - Serious problem considering amount of money that advertisers spend only to have effects of their advertisements diluted by interference. - He suggested one strategy that might enhance the memory trace is by running multiple exposes to an advertisement on one day rather than spread these out over a week. - Results in reduced interference. |
- Danaher et al found what? - To do w/ adverts - Why is this a serious problem? - What was his suggestion to enhance the memory trace? - Why is this a strength? |
|
|
Limitation of Interference Theory: Artificiality
|
- Artificial lab experiments. - Interference requires special conditions e.g word pair stimuli need to be generated. - These conditions are very rare in day-to-day life. - They have little relevance to everyday situations - so lacks mundane realism. - Due to this, ecological validity can be questioned as interference can only account for a very specific & limited range of forgetting in LTM. |
- Lab - Requires special conditions which are... - Lack mundane realism - How does ecological validity? |
|
|
Limitation of Interference Theory: Contradictory Evidence
|
- Offers a weak explanation for the phenomenon observed in lab experiments. - Anderson concluded that there is no doubt that interference plays a role in forgetting but how much forgetting can be attributed to inference is unclear. - Interference effects do occur in everyday life, they don't occur that often. - There are special conditions that are required for interference that lead to forgetting. - Limitation = this explanation isn't considered to be the best explanation of forgetting. |
- What did Anderson conclude about interference? - Interference effects do occur in everyday life but... - Special Conditions - Why is this a limitation? |
|
|
What is Retrieval Failure?
|
- Cues serve as a trigger which help retrieve info. - Retrieval theory suggests forgetting will occur when the cues & or contexts of learning and recall are different. - Insufficient cues. - Due to lack of accessibility. - Tulving & Thomson suggest if cues are not present @ the time of recall, then the info isn't accessible & therefore is 'forgotten'. |
|
|
|
Outline Context-Dependant Forgetting &Research (P,F &C)
|
- Absence of external cues, e.g category names, places & smells. Godden & Baddeley P - 18 divers learned a list of 36 unrelated words either on land or underwater asked to free recall on land or underwater. - Word lists recorded on tape & played underwater. - Created 4 conditons. - Each diver took part in all conditions ( repeated measures design). F - Environental context of learning & recall were the same they gave better free recall. - When external cues available were different from the ones available when recall = retrieval failure. C - Suggests memory is better when the context is consistent. - When info is encoded in memory associated contexts are recorded. If these are different @ time of retrieval = may appear to have forgotten them. |
Godden & Baddeley - Use of divers
|
|
|
Outline State-Dependant Forgetting & Research (P,F & C).
|
Occurs when there is an absence of internal cues, e.g. emotional state, physiological state & mood. Goodwin et al P - Male volunteers were required to remember a list of words when either drunk or sober. - 'Drunk' condition were 3x over UK drink driving limit. - Pp's were asked to recall lists of words after 24 hrs. Some were sober but others had to get drunk again. F - Recall scores suggest that info learned when drunk is more available when asked to recall in the same state later on. C - Suggests memory is better when the internal state is consistent. - If mental states are different @ the time of retrieval, it may appear that info is forgotten. |
Goodwin et al - drunk test |
|
|
Strength of Retrieval Failure: Research Support
|
- Such research includes lab, field & natural experiments, as well as anecdotal evidence. - Thus has relevance to everyday memories - has mundane realism. - Eyesenck argues that retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting in LTM. - Strength b/c Increases validity of explanation, especially true b/c shows retrieval failure occurs in real-life situations as well as in the highly controlled conditions of the lab. |
- What types of environment has research taken place in? - Has mundane realism - What does Eyesenck argue? - Why is it a strength?
|
|
|
Strength of Retrieval Failure: Application to the Real World
|
- Research helps us to avoid forgetting & to improve recall. - E.G When you take an exam in school, you need to be able to pass the exam by retrieving info. - Abernethy, suggests that when trying to recall info you should imagine the room where you did the learning b/c this as effective as actually being in the same room @ the time of retrieval. - This helps to improve recall & therefore improve the accuracy of your recall. |
- What does Abernethy suggest to do w/ exams? |
|
|
Limitation of Retrieval Failure: Retrieval Cues Don't Always Work
|
- Baddeley - using retrieval cues in real life isn't very effective b/c context effects are not very strong. - In Godden & Baddeley's research the contexts of learning & recall are extremely different & conclusions drawn from this suggest that forgetting occurs due to retrieval failure. - Learning material in one room & recalling it in another room is unlikely to result in much forgetting b/c environments are generally not different enough. - Limitation b/c means that real life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues do not actually explain forgetting, therefore validity is reduced.
|
- Baddeley suggest about using retrieval cues? - What do conclusions drawn from Godden & Baddeley suggest? - B/C environments are generally different enough. - Reduced validity
|
|
|
Limitation of Retrieval Failure: Validity
|
- RF is a difficult phenomenon to measure. - Suggests that forgetting occurs due to the overlap between info contained in the cues & info stored in the LTM. - Extent to this overlap is difficult to measure b/c context effect may relate to the kind of memory being tested. - Godden & Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition task instead of a free recall task. - When recognition was tested there was no-context dependent effect: performance was the same in all 4 conditions. - Limitation b/c means the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test in a certain way so the method used to test the retrieval theory are inaccurate - undermines the theory. |
- There is an overlap between info contained in the cues &... - Extent to which overlap is difficult to measure b/c... - Godden & Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment w/ what difference? - What was the finding w/ the no-context dependent effect?
|
