• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evaluate two theories of forgetting.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Evaluate two theories of forgetting To be able to understand why we forget, we must first consider the distinction between availability and accessibility: the first refers to whether or not material has been stored in the first place, while the second refers to being able to retrieve what has been stored. In terms of the multi store model, since information must be transferred from STM to LTM for permanent storage, availability has mainly to do with STM and the transfer of information from STM to LTM, and accessibility has mainly to do with LTM. This suggests that one way of looking at forgetting is to ask what prevents information from staying in STM long enough to be transferred to LTM( trace decay, interference, displacement), and another is to ask what prevents us from accessing the information that is in LTM. 1. Trace decay This explanation of forgetting in short term memory assumes that the memories leave a trace on the brain. ...read more.

Middle

This procedure was known as the serial probe technique. The numbers were presented at different speeds. If information fades away due to the passage of time, then numbers presented at a faster rate have less time to decay than numbers presented at a slower rate. If trace decay is occurring then memory should be better - more correct answers - when the information is presented fast. However, presentation rate appeared to make little difference. There was no significant relationship between the speed of presentation and the recall of correct numbers. These findings show extreme doubt of the trace decay theory of forgetting. 2. Interference This theory states that forgetting occurs because memories interfere with and disrupt each other. Old memories may disrupt new ones - this is called proactive interference, which means forward interference. New memories can also disrupt old ones, which is known as retroactive interference, meaning backwards interference. Interference becomes more likely when memories are similar. ...read more.

Conclusion

They gave the first word which came into their minds which probably effects what would happen in an everyday situation. They were then asked to learn a new set of words which were linked to the first one. They were then asked to recall all the words they'd learnt. This should result in retroactive interference because the words belonged to the same semantic field. New learning should disrupt older memories and participants should've forgotten the first word they chose. They didn't. There was no evidence of interference. This experiment suggests that when participants behave 'normally' and select their usual associations, interference may not occur. Baddeley (1990) points out that it has been very difficult to demonstrate significant proactive interference outside the laboratory; one reason being that when the learning of potentially interfering material is spaced out over time, interference is greatly reduced. However in the laboratory the experime` `nt is extremely compressed in time (artificially) and so it increases the probability of interference. Experimental studies of interference have very low ecological validity. Jo-Anne Cromack ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Cognitive Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Cognitive Psychology essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Are memories permanent and unalterable?

    4 star(s)

    (Penfield, 1969). Besides the small number actual 'flashbacks' among Penfield's patients, Neisser (1967) argued that individuals under brain stimulation might be reconstructing these experiences rather than reliving them. This reconstraction hypothesis was also supported by Mahl, Rothenberg, Delgado, and Hamlin (1964) who found that memories produced by electrical stimulation mainly consisted of thoughts existing prior and during the stimulation.

  2. Peer reviewed

    "Discuss two theories of forgetting in LTM"

    3 star(s)

    The idea can be associated with revision, People try to learn very different material after each other otherwise they will forget more due to interference for example learning one topic in Psychology then revise or learn a totally unrelated and dissimilar subject like Law.

  1. Psychology Retrospective Interference coursework

    Participants in the independent groups design are also randomly assigned to each condition which means that the participants will have an equal chance of being assigned to each of the conditions. The target population for this experiment was students in Year 10-13 in Shrewsbury International School of Bangkok.

  2. Investigating the effects of organisation on learning

    A, and that the mean number of words remembered in Condition B is higher than that of Condition A, despite being found to be statistically insignificant (see Appendix 2). The reason for this may be due to individual differences, see discussion.

  1. the affect interference has on the recall of words

    and in the USA by Peterson (1959) was most popular for the theory that forgetting was a result of decay not interference. This study involved 4 cards each with 3 words on the back and a 3-digit number on the front.

  2. An investigation to discover the effects of retroactive interference on memory recall.

    a recall average of 45% this was the highest of the results and that the group with similar meaning to the first words had the poorest results with the average recall being 12%. The conclusion to this experiment was that retroactive interference had taken place; this is because the learning

  1. Retrieval Induced Forgetting in Coherent Narrative Text.

    Other research has been done to determine how retrieval induced forgetting occurs. Researchers had used category cues in the recognition phase to study retrieval induced forgetting and the studies show that the phenomenon occurs. Veling and Knippenberg (2004) wanted to see whether or not retrieval induced forgetting occurs Diane Poulos 6 without using categories as cues.

  2. Describe and evaluate at least two theories of forgetting.

    The term given to this is the encoding specifity principle. A study conducted by Tulving and Psotha [1971] compared cue - dependant forgetting with interference theory. Participants were given a retroactive interference task [learning information AFTER the material intended for recall].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work