Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Forgetting •proactive and retroactive interference The MSM of memory states that LTM has an unlimited capacity, and memories have a duration of potentially a lifetime However, we know by experience that we forget information stored in the LTM. But does that mean the memories are gone (availability), or we just can’t reach them (accessibility) ? Forgetting: interference Interference: one memory disturbs the ability to recall another. This might result in forgetting or distorting one or the other or both. This is more likely to happen if the memories are similar. Proactive interference: Previously learnt information interferes with the new information you are trying to store. For example: you have difficulties learning the names of the students in your psychology class instead you keep remembering the names of the students in your maths group last year. Old memory New memory Proactive interference Pro=forward Retroactive interference: A new memory interferes with older ones. For example: you have difficulties remembering the names of the students in your maths group last year because you learnt the names of your psychology class this year. Old memory New memory Retroactive interference Retro=backward Check point… Complete pg 16 in your packs… Research evidence: Underwood & Postman(1960) Aim: to find out if new learning interferes with previous learning. Procedure: Participants were divided into two groups. Group A were asked to learn a list of word pairs i.e. cat-tree, they were then asked to learn a second list of word pairs where the second paired word was different i.e. cat – glass. Group B were asked to learn the first list of word pairs only. Both groups were asked to recall the first list of word pairs. Results: Group B recall of the first list was more accurate than the recall of group A. 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. A real-life study: Baddeley & Hitch (1977) They asked rugby players to recall the names of teams recently played. For various reasons including injuries and suspensions most players they interviewed had missed some games, so for one player the last game might have been last week, while for another it was two months ago. Baddeley and Hitch found that recall for the last game was equally good whether that game was played some time ago or last week. This shows that incorrect recall was not due to decay (the passage of time) but was related to the number of intervening games. This demonstrates that interference is a reason for forgetting in our everyday life. Evaluation Most of the evidence supporting this theory comes from lab studies i.e. Underwood and Postman. This is a strength as the extraneous variables can be controlled and these experiments can be replicated so reliability can be tested. However they use artificial material (i.e. word lists) which are meaningless to the participants so they do not represent every day situations when we have to remember things which have meaning to us i.e. a shopping list, so they lack….. However there is support for the influence of interference in every day life (Baddeley & Hitch). Lacks Validity (external) - The participants do not have the same motivation to remember the stimuli used in an experiment than they have to remember things which are important to their lives i.e. remembering studies for an exam, so the recall of the participants might be less accurate and make the effects of interference appear stronger than they really are. Baddeley (1990) states that the tasks given to participants are too close to each other and, in real life, these kinds of events are more spaced out so the effect might be different. The research does not investigate whether the information has “disappeared” or can be recovered later. Ceraso (1967) showed that if tested again after 24 hours there is significant recovery so the effect of interference might be temporary. This could be seen as conflicting evidence Tasks 1. Complete pgs 17-20 in your packs – highlight research and whether it is supporting or conflicting 2. HSW pg 3, 4-7 using your text books