Describe a theory of forgetting.

The Trace Decay Theory of forgetting is one of a number of theories used by cognitive psychologists. Psychologists often argue over two beliefs regarding the nature of forgetting, namely Availability (i.e. forgotten information is not stored in the first place or is completely lost) and Accessibility (i.e. forgotten information is stored in the LTM, but there is a problem accessing it). The Trace Decay Theory is associated with the problem of availability. The logic behind this theory is that the things we learn (i.e. smells, names, places, telephone numbers) are stored in the brain as physical traces, or Engrams.

A study by Hebb in 1949 led him to the conclusion that when an Engram is being formed, or when learning is taking place, it is very delicate and liable to disruption. In this state it is known as the Active Trace, and offers an explanation for short-term forgetting. After learning has occurred, the Engram becomes stronger and more permanent; this is called a Structural Trace. Research has shown that the Trace Decay Theory can be applied to LTM forgetting, in that a lack of activation of the Engram caused it to fade out of existence, or decay.

Question 2: Evaluate the Trace Decay Theory of forgetting.

To evaluate the Trace Decay Theory of forgetting, we must first determine its validity, or see how ecologically valid results supporting the theory are. Any laboratory experiment used to test a theory uses the manipulation of variables to create a ‘perfect’ situation in which to carry out the test. However such environments are unnatural and unexperienced in everyday life. They are said to lack validity.

Trace Decay Theory in short tem memory relates to the theory of duration in short term memory. Brown and Peterson (1965) used the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Question 2: Evaluate the Trace Decay Theory of forgetting.

Trace Decay Theory in short tem memory relates to the theory of duration in short term memory. Brown and Peterson (1965) used the serial probe technique to test this theory. For this, participants were given a series of numbers to learn. They were then given one of the numbers and asked which number followed it. The numbers were presented at different speeds, thus, if the trace decay theory is indeed correct, then the faster the numbers were presented the better recall should occur, as the more likely the information is to stay in the short term memory. However this was not the case with the results. This research employed a laboratory experiment, therefore controlling all the factors, so its validity can be questioned. The numbers that the participants were given to learn were not necessarily numbers one would come across in everyday life, and therefore may not be remembered as easily.

Another study into the Trace Decay Theory was the Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) experiment. Participants had to learn a list of ten random syllables. Half then went to sleep, assuming an ideal ‘do nothing’ state. The other half would continue with their normal activities. It would be safe to assume that decay had taken place if after a period of time recall was poorer. However, those who were asleep did not recall less, in fact their recall was better. This was again however, a laboratory experiment, and as such its validity is questionable.

So if the Trace Decay Theory is not an adequate explanation for forgetting, what is? Another theory of forgetting is the Retrieval Failure Theory, or cue-dependent forgetting. According to this theory, memories cannot be retrieved because the relevant ‘cues’ are not being used. Tulvig and Pearlstone (1966) conducted a study which showed the affects ‘cues’ had on recall. Participents were read a lists of varying numbers of words, some of which were in categories with one, two or four word plus the category name. Those who were given category names scored higher, especially where more words were used. Those without categories scored less, but were then given category names and their scores increased. This concludes that the category names acted as ‘cues’, allowing the participants access to previously unavailable in their brain.

The Cue-dependent Theory is clearly more reliable as it has more actual evidence to back it up, where as the Trace Dependent Theory has very little evidence to support it.