Past learning interferes
with current attempts
to learn
E.g. You previously
learned Spanish so
now struggle to
learn French
Key Study:
Underwood (1957)
When participants had to learn a
series of word lists they didn't
remember the lists encountered
later on.
When one list was memorised,
participants remembered 70% of the
information. When 10 or more were
memorised, participants remembered 20%.
Retroactive
Current learning
interferes with past
learning
E.g. You forget your
old phone number
after learning your
knew one
Key Study: Postman (1960)
Annotations:
Key study: Postman (1960)
Aim: To investigate how retroactive interference affects learning. In other words, to investigate whether information you have recently received interferes with the ability to recall something you learned earlier.
Method: A lab experiment was used. Participants were split into two groups. Both groups had to remember a list of paired words – e.g. cat - tree, jelly - moss, book - tractor. The experimental group also had to learn another list of words where the second paired word is different – e.g. cat – glass, jelly- time, book – revolver. The control group were not given the second list. All participants were asked to recall the words on the first list.
Results: The recall of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental group.
Conclusion: This suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with participants’ ability to recall the list. This is an example of retroactive interference.
Evaluation
Although proactive and retroactive interference are reliable and robust effects, there are a number of problems with interference theory as an explanation of forgetting.
First, interference theory tells us little about the cognitive processes involved in forgetting. Secondly, the majority of research into the role of interference in forgetting has been carried out in a laboratory using lists of words, a situation which is likely to occur fairly infrequently in everyday life (i.e. low ecological validity). As a result, it may not be possible to generalize from the findings.
Baddeley (1990) states that the tasks given to subjects are too close to each other and, in real life; these kinds of events are more spaced out. Nevertheless, recent research has attempted to address this by investigating 'real-life' events and has provided support for interference theory. However, there is no doubt that interference plays a role in forgetting, but how much forgetting can be attributed to interference remains unclear (Anderson, 2000).
(From https://simplypsychology.org/forgetting.html#inter)
Recall was higher when
only given one list to learn
Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924)
People who learnt information
and then went to sleep would
remember more than those
who learnt information and
then carried out their normal
daily activities
Concluded the events of the day
had interfered with the
information
AO3
Tells us little about
cognitive processes
Most research into interference was
lab-based and low in ecological
validity so can't be generalised
Some research supports
Retrieval Failure
Cue/Context/State Dependent Forgetting
Cue: Something that
happens/is said/seen
Context: Environment
State: Emotional and mental
state, e.g. happy, sad, drunk
Context Study: Godden and Baddeley
Some remembered words on
shore, some remembered
underwater.
Remembered more
when in same
environment.
Cue Study: Aggleton and Waskett
A group of participants recalled more
at Jorvik when the same smells were
present.
State Study: Carter and Cassaday
Gave
anti-histamines
and a recall
task. Recalled
more when in
same state as
encoding.
Memories are present in LTM
but inaccessible due to
lack of correct trigger
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)
Gave participants a list of 48 words in 12
categories of 4 words each. Each category
had a heading. Some participants were
given the headings as cues and others
weren't, and they were asked to recall the
words.
Participants with cues remembered more
AO3
Most studies were lab
based so highly
controlled and replicable
Low ecological validity
Huge amount of
support so seen as
main explanation
Eyewitness Testimony
Leading Questions
Loftus and Palmer
Showed university students a
video of a car crash. Asked to
estimate speed, using
differently phrased questions.
When more violent verbs were
used, higher speeds were
estimated, and vice versa.
After this they asked about
seeing broken glass. Again, when
more violent verbs were used,
more believed they had seen
broken glass
AO3
Would be different in real
life, other factors would
affect it, more emotion and
stress (low ecological validity)
Sensitive issue, psychological damage
Witness Discussion
When witnesses discuss the
crime, they may change their
opinions/what they
remember unintentionally
based on what they hear
Anxiety/Yerkes Dodson
The Yerkes Dodson Law states there
is a bell curve for level of arousal and
anxiety with an optimum level. If one
surpasses this level, performance will
decrease (i.e. less will be remembered)
Weapon Focus
If there's a weapon on the
scene one may focus on
this and be distracted from
other details
Repression
An experience may have
been so stressful that they
have forced the memory
down, i.e. repressed it
(suggested by Freud)
The Cognitive interview
4 Key Features
Report Everything
Get irrelevant information
Report in a different order
Recreate the context
Potential stress + psychological damage
Report from someone else's PoV
Economic Implications: Less
wrongly convicted, more
accurate police reports, less
criminals on the streets.
However, time and money is
required to train officers to do
the cognitive interview.
Fisher and Geiselman
Showed a violent video of
crime and interviewed with
standard and cognitive 48
hours later. Recall of
accurate statements was
significantly higher with
cognitive interview
AO3
Psychological trauma,
violent videos may cause
harm, may need therapy
Low ecological
validity, just a
video, no
anxiety/weapon
focus/yerkes
dodson
effects.
Enhanced Cognitive
Interview
Can be used on children
Less distraction ensured
Witness given control over flow of information
Open ended questions
Speak slowly, allowed to say
I don't know
Remembering
Models
The Multi-Store Model
AO1
Atkinson and Shiffrin
Structural Model
Three main stages
Sensory Register
Duration: 0.25-0.5 seconds
Capacity: Very large, all sensory experience
Encoding: Modality Specific
Short Term Memory
Capacity: 7+/-2 items
Duration: 0-18 seconds
Encoding: Mainly acoustic
Can transfer to long term through rehersal
Can be brought
back to STM by
retrieval
Long Term Memory
Duration: Unlimited
Capacity: Unlimited
Encoding: Semantic
AO3
Provides a good
understanding of structure
and the processes
The working memory model is better.
Over simplistic
Suggests the role of
rehearsal is more
important than it really is
Research
The Case of HM
Surgery removed
hippocampus, STM was
unaffected but LTM no
longer worked
Supports MS model in that
STM and LTM are separate
Jacobs (1887)
Used digit span
technique to asses
STM capacity
Average span was 9.3
for items and 7.3 for
letters
Supports view that STM
is limited to 5-9 items
The Working Memory Model
AO1
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
Four main parts
Central Executive
Episodic Buffer
Backup for
both categories
Visuospatial Sketchpad
Contains visual
information, has two
parts; visual cache,
inner scribe (eye)
Phonological Loop
Contains auditory
information, has
two parts;
phonological store
(inner ear),
articulatory process
(inner voice, allows
maintenance
rehearsal)
AO3
Supported by dual task
studies, hard to do two
things of the same
system
Supported by the case of HF, in a
motorcycle accident only the
phonological system was affected
Little is known about the
central executive, its exact is
role unclear
Doesn't explain the link to LTM,
how it is transferred
Types of Long Term Memory
Proposed by Tulving (1972)
Procedural
Memory of how to do things, motor skills
E.g. Remembering how
to ride a bike
Semantic
Remembering information
E.g. Names, words, general facts
Episodic
Remembering events
E.g. What happened on
certain days
Involves time
and place
AO3
Supported by amnesiac
patients who only
remember procedural
information and not
declarative information
Shows and explains things well,
not at all over simplistic