In this psych boost video we will cover explanations for forgetting.
We have all experienced entering an old password or pin by mistake
and we have all struggled to remember something for ages only for the memory to be triggered
when given a clue like walking into the kitchen, forgetting why we are there then remembering
when walking back into the living room. So we are going to discuss types of interference,
both proactive and retroactive, as well as three types of cue dependent forgetting.
Interference as an explanation for forgetting is the idea that
long term memories get confused with other memories when they are coded.
And there are two ways this can happen, firstly proactive interference. This is when information
is already in long term memory, so old information interferes with the recall of newer information.
We could say that old information moves forward in time.
There is also the opposite process, when learning new information interferes or disrupts the recall
of older information. And we could say this is new information that works backwards in time.
This can be a little tricky to understand so let's look at a few examples.
Here are ten scenarios and based on what I have said try to figure out if they are examples of
pro, or retroactive interference. Pause the video and have a go.
Ok how did you do? If you got it right you can probably spot in the scenario either that
it was more recently learnt information that was disrupted for proactive, and old information that
was disrupted in the retroactive scenarios. Now two things that make interference more
likely are, firstly how similar the two pieces of information are, so you're more likely to
have interference between phone numbers than say a phone number and a postcode.
And we would say because the two sets of information are similar this creates
response competition, both sets of information are there but it's difficult to choose between them.
Secondly time sensitivity, Interference is more likely to happen if there is a small time
difference between when you first learnt both bits of information. And of course the reverse is true,
the larger the time gap between learning both bits of information
the less likely interference is to happen. Research showing retroactive interference
is by Schmidt who showed people between the ages of eleven and seventy nine a map
of the area around their childhood home, but left out the street names. Schmidt
found the more times that someone moved house the fewer street names they could recall, you
might recognize this as a negative correlation. This data suggests retroactive interference,
the new information of more recent street names interfering with the recall of older street names.
There is also research showing proactive interference by Greenberg and Underwood.
Participants were asked to learn four pair-word lists with 48 hours between learning each list.
The percentage of correctly recalled words decreased the more word lists
had been learnt previously from 69% for the first list to 25% on the fourth word list.
This suggests previously learnt information moves forward and interferes with the recall of new
information, so proactive interference. # Cue dependant forgetting
We will come to some more general evaluations in a minute, but first I want to talk about
another concept, Cue dependant forgetting. This is when the information is in long term memory,
but we cant access it because we don’t have the correct cues or prompts.
This is an idea called the encoding specificity principle, when we make or, encode our memories
other contextual information from when you made the memory is encoded along with it,
such as aspects of the environment or how you felt when you made the memory. Recalling that memory,
or forgetting is influenced by the presence or absence of similar retrieval cues.
So there are going to be three types of retrieval cue we will cover,
context, state and category dependant cues. Context dependent cues are the cues we get
from the external environment. Familiar sights and sounds can trigger memories,
an absence of these retrieval cues can make recall more difficult and inhibit memory.
A study that demonstrated this effect was by godden and baddeley, they taught divers
word lists either on land or underwater, and then tested them on land or underwater.
they found recall was significantly better if they recalled the information in the same place that
they had learnt it, so recall was best underwater if they had learnt the information underwater.
State dependent cues are the cues we get from our own internal environment, so this can be a mood,
a state of arousal like high anxiety or if your internal environment is affected by alcohol or
drugs. We would argue that recall is better if when recalling information we are in the
same state as when the information is coded. A study that demonstrates the effect of state
dependent cues is Overtons research, in this study information was either learnt drunk or sober.
And later each group was tested drunk or sober. Overton found that recall was better if learnt
in the same state. So interestingly recalling information learnt drunk
was better when drunk again. Finally category dependent cues.
This is a little more complex, the way we organise information can act as a cue.
If we have other bits of information linked to what we are trying to recall that acts as a cue.
And you may have experienced this in class with your teacher, when I ask a question in class
and the student struggles to answer I won't just tell them the answer, I will give a cue.
Hoping that will trigger a memory. So I may say we talked about this idea when we studied attachment.
The answer may suddenly come, as the because the information is linked to the category “attachment”
Category dependent cues are shown by tulving and pearlstone. They gave participants 48 words to
learn, the participants either used free recall, saying the words back in any order or recalling
the list split into 4 word categories that acted as cues. The recall in the categorised
condition was significantly better than the uncategorised recall condition showing categories
act as an effective cue for recall. # Additional evaluations
for “explanations for forgetting” Now let's think of some additional evaluations,
well first of all research on how forgetting works has real practical applications such
as revision strategies for students and helping police gain more accurate eyewitness testimony,
with findings from cue dependent forgetting being used in the cognitive interview,
a technique we will cover at the end of the memory unit.
With interference the loss of information may only be a temporary process,
so interference theory may not be a true explanation of forgetting.
We don't know if interference involves writing over information so it is no longer accessible
or if with the right cues we can access the lost information.
Interference also can't explain many day to day examples of forgetting,
interference can only explain forgetting when two sets of information are similar.
Many everyday examples of forgetting, like forgetting someone's birthday or
where you just put your keys are a little more difficult to explain with interference theory.
Finally again there is the issue of much of the research on memory
coming from artificial laboratory studies using tasks that lack mundane realism,
as in tasks that are not like tasks people do in their normal lives. We can argue this
lowers the validity of these findings, not really showing how forgetting happens in the real world.
have a go at this a real exam question on explanations for forgetting. if you are a
psych boost patron at the neuron level and above you can access a tutorial on psych boost .com.
in it I will talk you through a model answer for this question and general tips.for everyone else
don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss the videos released right up to your exams, and I will
see you in the next psych boost video, factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.