15951689
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Chanelle Titchener, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Chanelle Titchener
vor etwa 6 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Forgetting | - Interference - Retrieval failure |
| Retroactive Interference | - Müller and Pilzecker, 1900 - Participants were given a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins & then after a retention interval were asked to recall the lists. - Recall was worse when an intervening task was given between the initial learning and recall |
| Proactive Interference | Underwood, 1957 - Analysed findings from other studies where participants learned a series of word lists, they don't learn the later words as well as earlier words |
| Similarities in test materials | - McGeoch and McDonald, 1931 - list of 10 adj. (A) followed by list B 10 minutes later, then followed by recall - If list B was a list of synonyms of A, recall was poor (12%), nonsense words (26%), and numbers (37%) - Only interference could explain this |
| Real-world Study | Baddeley and Hitch (1977) - Rugby players recalling the names of the teams they've played against over the season, not all players played - If the theory of decay is correct, all players should recall a similar % of the games played. Interference theory is correct, those who played more should forget proportionally more |
| Evaluation | Artificial Material > Lab-based and artificial lists > Does not relate to everyday life uses of memory, participants may lack the motivation to remember the links in the studies = Low ecological validity |
| Evaluation | Does not occur often > Only occur on certain occasions = 2 memories need to be quite similar Anderson (2000) - interference DOES play a role in forgetting but how much is unclear |
| Evaluation | Individual differences > Some people are less affected by proactive interference > Kane and Engle (2000) - those with greater WM were less susceptible |
| Retrieval Failure | - Encoding specificity principle - Context-dependent forgetting - State-dependent forgetting |
| Encoding Specificity Principle | - Memory is most effective if the info present when encoding is available at retrieval - Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) 48 words from 12 categories (fruit - apple) in 2 recall conditions (free or cued) - Cued - 60% Free - 40% |
| Context-dependent Forgetting | Godden and Baddeley (1975) - Scuba divers learned words either on land or underwater and recalled in the same conditions - Same recall conditions as learning had the best results |
| State-dependent Forgetting | Goodwin et al. (1969) - Male volunteers were asked to remember a list of words when either drunk or sober - Then asked to recall in a sober or drunk state. |
| Evaluation | Danger of Circularity > |
| Evaluation | Explanations for Interference effects > Tulving and Psotka (1971) found that interference was due to absence of cues > List of 6 words from 3 categories > Free recall of the 24 words, then cued recall > Found evidence of retroactive interference > Cued recall = remembered 70% of words |
| Evaluation | Research Support > Research involved lab, field and natural experiments and anecdotal evidence, therefore, having relevance to everyday memory experiences |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.