//Forgetting

Question 1

Why do we forget information from STM

Answer 1

• due to an availablity problem- the information is no longer available because of the limited capacity or the limited duration of STM
• the information may have been pushed out (displaced) or have faded away (decayed)

Question 2

Why do we forget information from LTM

Answer 2

• caused by decay (an avilability problem)
• information was stored but is hard to retreieve- accessibility problem
• information is confused- interference problem

Question 3

Explain the primary-recency effect in STM

Answer 3

• the order in which information is learned determines how reliably it will be recalled
• the first item in a list is initially distinguished from previous activities as important (Primary effect) and may be rehearsed and transferred to long term memory by the time of recall
• items at the end of the list are still in STM (Recency effect) at the time of recall
• those in the middle may have been displaced

Question 4

What is the Interference Theory (IT)

Answer 4

• forgetting is a result of one memory competing with, confusing or disrupting other information, leading to inaccurate recall
• likely to occur when memories are smiliar

Question 5

What is proactive interference

Answer 5

• occurs when information stored previously interfers with an attempt to recall something new
• works foward in time

Question 6

What is retroactive interference

Answer 6

• occurs when coding new information disrupts information stored previously
• works backwards in time

Question 7

Henk Schmidt et al (2000)- remembering the street names of one’s childhood neighbourhood- aim

Answer 7

-to assess the influence of retroactive interference upon the memory of street names during childhood

Question 8

Henk Schmidt et al (2000)- remembering the street names of one’s childhood neighbourhood- method

Answer 8

• 700 names were selected randomly from 1700 former students of a Dutch elementary school. Sent a questionnaire
• 212 pps responded and were given a map of the Molenberg neighbourhood
• the 48 street names were replaced with numbers
• they were asked to remeber as many of them as possible
• other relevant details were collected e.g. how many times they moved house
• the amount of retroactive interference experienced was assessed by the number of times individuals had moved to other naighbourhoods or cities. 25% of pps had never moved

Question 9

Henk Schmidt et al (2000)- remembering the street names of one’s childhood neighbourhood- findings

Answer 9

-positive association between the number of times pps had moved house outside the Molenberg neighbourhood, and the number of streets forgotten

Question 10

Henk Schmidt et al (2000)- remembering the street names of one’s childhood neighbourhood- conclusion

Answer 10

• findings suggest that learning new patterns of street names when moving house makes recalling an older pattern of street names harder to do
• retroactive interference does seem able to explain forgetting in some real life situations

Question 11

Henk Schmidt et al (2000)- remembering the street names of one’s childhood neighbourhood- evaluation

Answer 11

• extraneous variables may have confounded results e.g. those who had played extensively in the neighbourhood would probably have learned the street names to a greater degree to those who hasn’t
• possible to conduct research on retroactive inference in real life settings

Question 12

Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

Answer 12

• players who had played a varying number of rugby union games to remember as many of the teams they had played against as possible
• IT was tested, by assessing how recall was affected by the number of games played
• trace decay theory tested by assessing the amount of time that had passed between each game played
• forgetting due to number of games played rather than time passed- supporting interference

Question 13

Strengths of interference theory

Answer 13

• has research support, which were highly controlled lab experiments
• evidence for interference existing in real world settings e.g. you might struggle to remeember your French vocab if you later start learning German

Question 14

Weaknesses of interference theory

Answer 14

• seems much greater in artificial lab settings than they do in real life so it may not be as strong as a theory once thought
• gives us an explanation for why we forget, but it doesn’t go into the cognitive or biological process involved- doesn’t fully explain how or why interference happens

Question 15

What is cue dependent forgetting

Answer 15

• occurs when information is still in LTM, but cannot be accessed
• sees recall as dependent upon retrieval cues
• recall is dependent upon accessing the information by remebering the retreival cue under which the information is stored

Question 16

Cue dependent failure can either be context dependent or state dependent. What are these

Answer 16

• Context dependent- occurs when retrieval cues are external (social, environmental). External environment is different at recall from how it was at coding
• State dependent- occurs when retreival cues are internal (thoughts, emotions feelings). Internal environment is dissimilar at recall to when information was coded

Question 17

Abernethy (1940)

Answer 17

• found that pps after learning some material, recalled it less well when tested by an unfamiliar room than pps who were tested by a familiar teacher in an unfamiliar room
• support for context dependent failure

Question 18

Strengths of cue dependent forgetting

Answer 18

• thought to be the best explanation of forgetting in LTM, as it has the strongest evidence
• most forgetting is seen to be cause be retreival failure. This means that virually all memory we have is available in LTM- we just need the right cue to be able to access it
• supports the idea that states the more deeply information is processes when coded, the more links and associations will be created between items in LTM. More retreival cues available for recall

Question 19

Overton (1972)

Answer 19

​

• Got pps to learn material when either drunk or sober and found that recall was worse when Ps were in a different internal state at recall than their internal state at coding
• E.g. recalling information learned when drunk was better if the information had been learned when drunk rather than sober
• Supports state-dependent failure as valid explanation of forgetting

Question 20

Weaknesses of cue dependent failure

Answer 20

• many studies supporting CDF are lab based and are not like everyday memory tasks
• the theory might not explain all types of memory. For example, cues might not be relevant to procedural memory, such as remembering how to ride a bike