Explanations for forgetting: proactive and retroactive interference and retrieval failure due to absence of cues.

INTERFERENCE

Interference Theory – an explanation for forgetting.

When we refer to forgetting, we generally mean a persons inability to recall or recognise something that they had previously learned.

Forgetting across short-term memory or long-term memory has often been explained in terms of ‘trace decay’; the idea the memory code created in the brain to store information has disappeared.

This was popularly accepted until the Interference Theory offered another explanation.

Interference theory argues forgetting occurs due to two memories competing and being affected by past memories or possible future learning.

The more similar the two memories are the more interference it causes as the two memories become confused with one another.

Two types of interference are proposed to occur: proactive interference and retroactive interference.

Proactive interference occurs (PI) forward in time and with the coding of new memories being interfered with due to past similar memories. For example, an old mobile number is recalled when trying to recall the new mobile phone number.

Keppel and underwood (1962) demonstrated proactive interference. Participants were tasked with recalling consonant trigrams after varying intervals where they were tasked with counting backwards in threes. Forgetting increased after each interval however little forgetting occurred at the start. Proactive interference can explain this as earlier consonants entered the long-term memory and thus interfered with the formation of new memories.

Retroactive interference (RI) occurs backwards in time when the coding of new information disrupts previously stored information. For example, you learn your new mobile number but are unable to remember your old one. The new memory, therefore, affects recall of the old memory. Ceraso (1967) suggested one possible explanation for RI was there was no actual loss of information but merely the wrong information was accessed as it had been moved.

Unlearning theory however suggests the new learning replaces the old learning.

Muller (1900) identified retroactive interference through a study where participants tasked with learning a list of syllables are given an intervening task between exposure to the syllables and recall. The intervening task (describing paintings) produced retroactive interference with participants struggling to recall their lists.

Interference Theory Evaluation

McDonald et al (1931) experimented with participants giving them lists of adjectives to remember (List A). After learning List A they were given List B and tasked with learning this. Recall was found to be poorest when List B was a list of synonyms of List A (12% recall) supporting the case for confusion to occur between the two memories as interference theory states.

There is a huge body of work and research which supports retroactive and proactive interference occurring.

One major weakness with interference theory is the interference effects are more evident in laboratory-based settings using various memory-based tasks. These setups lack ecological validity and also mundane realism as the tasks are rarely indicative of what people would experience in real-life situations. Therefore it makes it difficult to generalise the findings externally beyond the laboratory settings or understand exactly how much day-to-day forgetting can be credited to interference or even forgetting in general.

Anderson (2000) believed interference did play a role in forgetting but it was difficult to understand exactly how much. Individual differences can also explain why some people are less affected by proactive interference when compared to others.

Kane et al (2000) found individuals with bigger working memory spans were less susceptible to proactive interference when testing recall using three-word lists compared to individuals deemed to have less working memory spans. It is unclear whether those with greater working memory spans have achieved this either through more practice in some form but it highlights how interference theories cannot be fully generalised to everyone. Understanding how interference works can offer advertisers real-world applications for marketing campaigns as they attempt to build brands.

Danaher (2008) found when people were exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short time frame, participants struggled to recognise the brands or their message. Considering the millions spent on advertising this presents a big problem but also provides marketers with practical ways to overcome this. By ensuring adverts are spaced significantly far apart from the airing of rival brands or by repeating more on one day rather than over the weak with rival brands, this can help avoid dilution of adverts.

Another major weakness for interference theory is it only explains forgetting when information is similar and can not explain why forgetting occurs in the majority of real-life situations. Also forgetting due to similarities doesn’t happen that often either suggesting it is only one part of a bigger explanation and over-simplified. The fact that there is significant research support for cue-dependent forgetting suggests other explanations or processes must be at which and interference theory cannot explain everything.

Although interference has been proven to occur when trying to remember information, the theory does not offer any explanation as to what the cognitive processes are at work to cause this.

Possible exam questions on the Interference Theory include:

• What is meant by proactive interference and retroactive interference? (2+2 marks)

• Describe and evaluate interference theory (12 marks AS, 16 marks A-level)

Interference theory argues forgetting occurs due to two memories competing and being affected by past memories or possible future learning. The more similar the two memories are the more interference it causes as the two memories become confused with one another. Two types of interference are proposed to occur: proactive interference and retroactive interference.

Proactive interference occurs (PI) forward in time and with the coding of new memories being interfered with due to past similar memories. For example an old mobile number is recalled when trying to recall the new mobile phone number.

Keppel and underwood (1962) demonstrated proactive interference. Participants were tasked with recalling consonant trigrams after varying intervals where they were tasked with counting backwards in threes. Forgetting increased after each interval however little forgetting occurred at the start. Proactive interference can explain this as earlier consonants entered the long-term memory and thus interfered with the formation of new memories.

Retroactive interference (RI) occurs backwards in time when the coding of new information disrupts previously stored information. For example you learn your new mobile number but are unable to remember your old one. The new memory therefore affects recall of the old memory. Ceraso (1967) suggested one possible explanation for RI was there was no actual loss of information but merely the wrong information was accessed as it had been moved. Unlearning theory however suggests the new learning replaces the old learning

Muller (1900) identified retroactive interference through a study where participants tasked with learning a list of syllables are given an intervening task between exposure to the syllables and recall. The intervening task (describing paintings) produced retroactive interference with participants struggling to recall their lists.

The use of a study for AO1 wont score marks unless the question asks something like “Discuss research into explanations for forgetting” or “outline research findings” - If the question asks you to “outline explanations/theories for forgetting” then do not write about research studies for AO1 as they wont score marks (they are not theories or explanations) - Stick to the explanations only (in blue0 and you can then turn the research here into additional AO2 by using statements in your

evaluation such as “Mullers study found supporting evidence through...”                                                                                        47

Research/Evaluation AO2

McDonald et al (1931) experimented with participants giving them lists of adjectives to remember (List A). After learning List A they were given List B and tasked with learning this. Recall was found to be poorest when List B was a list of synonyms of List A (12% recall) supporting the case for confusion to occur between the two memories as interference theory states.

There is a huge body of work and research which supports retroactive and proactive interference occurring. One major weakness with interference theory is the interference effects are more evident in laboratory based settings using various memory based tasks. These setups lack ecological validity and also mundane realism as the tasks are rarely indicative of what people would experience in real life situations. Therefore it makes it difficult to generalise the findings externally beyond the laboratory settings or understand exactly how much day-to-day forgetting can be credited to interference or even forgetting in general. Anderson (2000) believed interference did play a role in forgetting but it was difficult to understand exactly how much.

Individual differences can also explain why some people are less affected by proactive interference when compared to others. Kane et al (2000) found individuals with bigger working memory spans were less susceptible to proactive interference when testing recall using three word lists compared to individuals deemed to have less working memory spans. It is unclear whether those with greater working memory spans have achieved this either through more practice in some form but it highlights how interference theories cannot be fully generalised to everyone.

Understanding how interference works offers advertisers real world applications for marketing campaigns as they attempt to build brands. Danaher (2008) found when people were exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short time frame, participants struggled to recognise the brands or their message. Considering the millions spent on advertising this presents a big problem but also provides marketers practical ways to overcome this. By ensuring adverts are spaced significantly far apart from the airing of rival brands or by repeating more on one day rather than over the weak with rival brands, this can help avoid dilution of adverts.

Another major weakness for interference theory is it only explains forgetting when information is similar and can not explain why forgetting occurs in the majority of real life situations. Also forgetting due to similarities doesn't happen that often either suggesting it is only one part of a bigger explanation and over-simplified. The fact that there is significant research support for cue-dependent forgetting suggests other explanations or processes must be at which and interference theory cannot not explain everything.

Although interference has been proven to occur when trying to remember information, the theory does not offer any explanation as to what the cognitive processes are at work to cause this.

Explanations For ForgettingRetrieval Failure

Theory AO1

Retrieval failure theories argue forgetting from the long-term memory is caused by failing to access the memory due to insufficient clues or cues to aid recall rather than it being unavailable. Similar to a labelling system on a filing system, the cues act as markers to aid recall and without these, the mind is unable to locate the correct memory. A cues effectiveness depends on the number of items associated with it with fewer items leading to a more effective cue. Tulving (1973) called this the encoding-specificity principle; where recollection is affected if the context of recall is different to what it was when the memory was coded. Tulving suggested that memory recall is most effective when information which was present at the time of encoding is available during retrieval. There are two main types of cue-dependent forgetting; context dependent failure and state dependent failure.

Context dependent failure may rely on external environmental retrieval cues being similar to when the information was encoded to aid recall, e.g. being in the same room where you learnt the answers to a test and then taking the test in this room. This would result in greater recall than being in a different room. Environmental context such as being at a particular place can trigger retrieval as can particular sights or sounds if they are experienced strongly enough during encoding.

Abernethy (1940) found that after participants had learnt various material, they showed greater difficulty with recall when they were tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room compared to a familiar teacher and familiar room. This shows support for the importance of context aiding the memory retrieval process.

State dependent failure would occur when the internal state of the person is different to when the information was encoded. This may be down to feeling a different emotion for example and trying to remember something when you were happy while you are feeling sad. Therefore internal states can also act as retrieval cues.

Support for state-dependent failure comes from a study by Overton (1972). Participants learnt material either drunk or sober and found participants struggled with recall more when trying to retrieve the information in a state that is different to the time of encoding. For example trying to recall information sober when it was learnt drunk (and vice versa). This provides support for state dependent failure as an explanation for forgetting.

See my previous mention in “interference theory” about how and when to use studies as AO1 - In short - only use studies for AO1 if the question asks for research or studies into retrieval failure explanations.

Research/Evaluation AO2

Many studies into retrieval failure due to cue dependent forgetting are based in the laboratory and lack ecological validity and mundane realism as they are not indicative of real world environments or situations of forgetting. Also such explanations are not able to explain why retrieval failure cannot be explained with cue dependent forgetting for activities such as riding a bike suggesting retrieval failure as a theory for forgetting is oversimplified and incomplete.

Research into retrieval failure and cue dependent forgetting has real world applications particularly in the search for missing people and reconstructing the last known whereabouts. This was used to aid in the conviction of Danielle Jones killer as a reconstruction in 2001 prompted witnesses to recall her arguing with a man which later led to the conviction of her uncle through witness testimony. This has also helped in cognitive interviews to help people recall information for witness testimonies. Therefore understanding how cues affect recall can help us develop ways to improve memory for the benefit of society.

Support for retrieval failure having more validity than Interference theory comes from Tulving and Psotka (1971). They showed how interference effects occurred due to the absence of any cues to aid retrieval. Participants were given word lists to remember with one condition having category headings and another without. In conditions without category headings, fewer words were recalled than when headings were present showing the information was available but simply unable to be accessed due to the absence of cues.

Research into state dependent failure such as Overtons (1972) study raise ethical concerns as they encouraging people to become drunk and under the influence of substances which can lead to injury or even death even by accident. Also the level of engagement from participants when under the influence of alcohol may not necessarily be genuine due to the way it affects peoples willingness to give honest responses. Some participants may have deliberately done poorly in some situations or try harder in others due to how alcohol affects people in unpredictable ways.

Baddeley (1997) criticised the encoding specificity principle as impossible to test and verify for certain making it unscientific. If a cue aids retrieval then it could be argued to have been encoded in the memory however if it does not then it could be argued that it wasn't encoded in memory as a cue. The fact that it is impossible to test for an item as having been encoded or not means we cannot fully test the encoding specificity principle.

Baddeley’s (1975) study did find supporting evidence for cue dependent learning and how context cues aided retrieval. Divers tasked with learning material either on dry land or while underwater were found to have poorer recall when they were tested on retrieval in a context that differed from where encoding and learning happened. For example testing them for material they learnt underwater while on land resulted in poorer retrieval than if they were tested while still underwater. The same was true vice versa too with better recall shown when the learning context remained the same as encoding. This supported cuedependent failure however this was during free recall only. When given a recognition test and asked to say whether the item on the list was in the learning list or not, context based failure effects were not observed showing how cue dependency can not explain all forms of forgetting.

Factors affecting eyewitness testimony

Here is some good news; compared to the old specification, the new AS and A-level psychology content you’re required to know for factors affecting eyewitness testimony have reduced.

You now only need to know about how factors such as misleading information and anxiety affect eyewitness testimony.

Retrieval Failure – an explanation for forgetting.

Retrieval failure theories argue forgetting from the long-term memory is caused by failing to access the memory due to insufficient clues or cues to aid recall rather than it being unavailable.

Similar to a labelling system on a filing system, the cues act as markers to aid recall and without these, the mind is unable to locate the correct memory. A cues effectiveness depends on the number of items associated with it with fewer items leading to a more effective cue.

Tulving (1973) called this the encoding-specificity principle; where recollection is affected if the context of recall is different from what it was when the memory was coded. Tulving suggested that memory recall is most effective when information which was present at the time of encoding is available during retrieval.

There are two main types of cue-dependent forgetting; context-dependent failure and state-dependent failure. Context-dependent failure may rely on external environmental retrieval cues being similar to when the information was encoded to aid recall, e.g. being in the same room where you learnt the answers to a test and then taking the test in this room. This would result in greater recall than being in a different room. Environmental context such as being at a particular place can trigger retrieval as can particular sights or sounds if they are experienced strongly enough during encoding.

Abernethy (1940) found that after participants had learnt various material, they showed greater difficulty with recall when they were tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room compared to a familiar teacher and familiar room. This shows support for the importance of context aiding the memory retrieval process.

State-dependent failure would occur when the internal state of the person is different from when the information was encoded. This may be down to feeling a different emotion for example and trying to remember something when you were happy while you are feeling sad. Therefore internal states can also act as retrieval cues.

Support for state-dependent failure comes from a study by Overton (1972). Participants learnt material either drunk or sober and found participants struggled with recall more when trying to retrieve the information in a state that is different from the time of encoding. For example, trying to recall information sober when it was learnt drunk (and vice versa). This provides support for state-dependent failure as an explanation for forgetting.

Retrieval Failure Evaluation

Many studies into retrieval failure due to cue dependent forgetting are based in the laboratory and lack ecological validity and mundane realism as they are not indicative of real-world environments or situations of forgetting.

Also, such explanations are not able to explain why retrieval failure cannot be explained with cue dependent forgetting for activities such as riding a bike, suggesting retrieval failure as a theory for forgetting is oversimplified and incomplete.

Research into retrieval failure and cue dependent forgetting has real-world applications particularly in the search for missing people and reconstructing the last known whereabouts.

This was used to aid in the conviction of Danielle Jones killer as a reconstruction in 2001 prompted witnesses to recall her arguing with a man which later led to the conviction of her uncle through witness testimony. This has also helped in cognitive interviews to help people recall information for witness testimonies. Therefore understanding how cues affect recall can help us develop ways to improve memory for the benefit of society.

Support for retrieval failure having more validity than interference theory comes from Tulving and Psotka (1971).

They showed how interference effects occurred due to the absence of any cues to aid retrieval. Participants were given word lists to remember with one condition having category headings and another without. In conditions without category headings, fewer words were recalled than when headings were present showing the information was available but simply unable to be accessed due to the absence of cues.

Research into state-dependent failure such as Overtons (1972) study raises ethical concerns as they encouraging people to become drunk and under the influence of substances which can lead to injury or even death even by accident. Also the level of engagement from participants when under the influence of alcohol may not necessarily be genuine due to the way it affects peoples willingness to give honest responses. Some participants may have deliberately done poorly in some situations or try harder in others due to how alcohol affects people in unpredictable ways.

Baddeley (1997) criticised the encoding specificity principle as impossible to test and verify for certain making it unscientific. If a cue aids retrieval then it could be argued to have been encoded in the memory however if it does not then it could be argued that it wasn’t encoded in memory as a cue. The fact that it is impossible to test for an item as having been encoded or not means we cannot fully test the encoding specificity principle.

Baddeley’s (1975) study did find supporting evidence for cue dependent learning and how context cues aided retrieval.

Divers tasked with learning material either on dry land or while underwater were found to have poorer recall when they were tested on retrieval in a context that differed from where encoding and learning happened.

For example, testing them for the material they learnt underwater while on land resulted in poorer retrieval than if they were tested while still underwater. The same was true vice versa too with better recall shown when the learning context remained the same as encoding. This supported cue- dependent failure, however, this was during free recall only. When given a recognition test and asked to say whether the item on the list was in the learning list or not, context-based failure effects were not observed showing how cue dependency can not explain all forms of forgetting.

Possible exam questions on the Retrieval Failure include:

• Describe one study that demonstrated how the absence of cues may lead to retrieval failure (6 marks)

• Outline and evaluate how retrieval failure due to the absence of cues leads to forgetting (12 marks AS, 16 marks A-level)