Forgetting refers to a person loss of the ability to recall or recognise a thing that they have previously learnt.
Decay in STM - suggests that if rehersal does not take place, the passage of time will cause the memory to disappear or decay. Explains why forgetfullness increases with time.
Peterson and Peterson (1959) - discovered that if participants were prevented from rehersing a list of words, their recall dropped form 80% after 3 seconds to 20% after 18 seconds. Study does not have high ecological validity - doesnt represent a real world situation - DC.
Displacement in STM - suggests that new information recieved by the STM overwrites or displaces previous information. When STM full, new information will push old information out.
Waugh and Norman (1965) - used serial probe technique to investigate the issue of displacement and decay. Found that both decay and displacement together explain forgetting, but that displacement would have a stronger effect.
Reitman (1974) - gave participants words to remember and then an interference task that wouldnt interfere with the informaiton being remembered (e.g. listening for a tone). After 15 seconds, recall had dropped by 21%, which suggetss that decay rather than displacement is responsible. Low EV as not real worl situaiton - DC.
1 of 3
LTM
Decay theory - explains how things are forgotten because the physical trace of a memory has dissapeared due to passage of time.
Lashley (1931) - trained rates to learn mazed and the removed secitons of the brain. Found a relationship between the amount of brain removed and amount of forgetting. Suggests memories have a physical trace suporting decay theory. Problem with generalisability - cant generalise results to humans as higher cognitive beings and behaviour is more complex - study invalid.
Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) - participants asked to recall nonesense syllables after being asleep for 8 hours. Those were able to remember more than those who had been awake for 8 hours. Disagrees with decay theory as if decay theory was correct, both groups should forget the same amount. Problem with internal validity.
Interference. Proactive interference - previous learning interferes with later learnning. Retroactive interference - later learning disrupts earlier learning.
Underwood and Postman (1960) - Participants had to learn a series of word pairs then presented with first word adn had to recall the paired word. Then had to learn a different list with the same stimulus word but different responce word. Tested on both lists - recall of response word poorer and affected by earlier and later learning. Low EV - only valid if tested on students.
2 of 3
LTM (continued) and conclusion
Cue dependant - forgetting due to inability to access memory. Unavailable as right cue is not present.
Abernethy (1940) - students who sat a test in the same room by the same instructors as in their normal lessons got higher marks. Environment was a cue for memory. However, generalisability - only valid when applying to students, cant generalise to rest of population as sample were students so does not represent whole population.
Goodwin et al (1969) - people who had forgot things whilst drunk could remember them when drunk again. However, ethics - risk to harm.
In conclusion, many explanations for foregtting in STM and LTM, including, decay, displacement and cue dependant. All have supportive and contradictory evidence.
Comments
No comments have yet been made