explanations for forgetting
- Created by: Humanur
- Created on: 05-06-21 22:44
View mindmap
- explanations for forgetting
- interference theory: suggests we forget because our long term memories become disrupted by other information whilr it is coded
- research
- Baddeley and Hitch
- asked rugby players to recall the names of rugby teams they've played against
- more influenced by the amount of teams they played against
- investigated 2 types offorgetting: trace decay, interference
- asked rugby players to recall the names of rugby teams they've played against
- on effects of similarity
- McGeoch and McDonald
- in both pi and ri interference is worse when there are similarities
- participants had to memorise a list of 10 words until they were 100% accurate then they learned a new list
- m+m found that words with similar meaning as the original list was the worst recall therefore interference is strongest when memories are similar
- participants had to memorise a list of 10 words until they were 100% accurate then they learned a new list
- in both pi and ri interference is worse when there are similarities
- McGeoch and McDonald
- Baddeley and Hitch
- retroactive interference: new information disrupt old
- research
- retrieval failure
- cue dependent forgetting: information is in ltm but can recall due to lack of appropriate cues(time, place)
- state dependent cues: internal enviroment as cues
- research
- Durely et al
- found that participants that hid their money while high were better at finding where it was when high high again
- Godden and Braddeley
- argued context was very important so they asked deep sea divers to memorise lists against 4 different conditions
- land-land water-land water-water
- most acurate recall was when they were in the same enviroment
- land-land water-land water-water
- argued context was very important so they asked deep sea divers to memorise lists against 4 different conditions
- Abernethy
- found context dependent forgetting was a factor in learning experiences
- experiment: 1) same teacher taught and asked torecall in same room 2) a different teacher asked for recall in a different room
- condition 1 had a much better rates of recall
- experiment: 1) same teacher taught and asked torecall in same room 2) a different teacher asked for recall in a different room
- found context dependent forgetting was a factor in learning experiences
- Overton
- asked participants to learn a list drunk/sober and recall sober/drunk, parpants that recalled in the same state had higher success rate
- Durely et al
- cue dependent forgetting: information is in ltm but can recall due to lack of appropriate cues(time, place)
- interference theory: suggests we forget because our long term memories become disrupted by other information whilr it is coded
- evaluation
- strength: evidence of interference in real life
- counterpoint: researchers can create ideal conditions
- ecological validity
- limitation: interference is temporary and can be overcome by cues
- Tulving gave people lists organised into unknown categories
- recall averaged to 70% at first them progressively got worse until they were given cues by the name of the categories
- Tulving gave people lists organised into unknown categories
- strength: evidence of retrograde facilitation
- Coehan and Luijtelaar: drug/placebo/list-> list/list/drug-> 1 week-> recall= poor/good/better
- the drug stops the brain from reaching parts of the brain processing memories
- Coehan and Luijtelaar: drug/placebo/list-> list/list/drug-> 1 week-> recall= poor/good/better
- interference theory: suggests we forget because our long term memories become disrupted by other information whilr it is coded
- research
- Baddeley and Hitch
- asked rugby players to recall the names of rugby teams they've played against
- more influenced by the amount of teams they played against
- investigated 2 types offorgetting: trace decay, interference
- asked rugby players to recall the names of rugby teams they've played against
- on effects of similarity
- McGeoch and McDonald
- in both pi and ri interference is worse when there are similarities
- participants had to memorise a list of 10 words until they were 100% accurate then they learned a new list
- m+m found that words with similar meaning as the original list was the worst recall therefore interference is strongest when memories are similar
- participants had to memorise a list of 10 words until they were 100% accurate then they learned a new list
- in both pi and ri interference is worse when there are similarities
- McGeoch and McDonald
- Baddeley and Hitch
- retroactive interference: new information disrupt old
- research
- strength: evidence of interference in real life
Comments
No comments have yet been made