Discuss theories of forgetting. Refer to evidence in your answer.

Forgetting is when you are unable to recall information that is stored in your long-term
and short-term memory. There are many different factors that can contribute to
forgetting and it happens to everyone; whether it’s something significant or
insignificant. Three main theories include Retrieval Failure, Repression and
Interference.

One of the theories relating to forgetting is Retrieval Failure. This is based in our long-
term memory store. Where the information you are trying to access is there but it
cannot be retrieved easily, the reason behind it is called Cue Dependency. Day to day
this happens to a lot of us and we usually say, “I know this but it’s on the tip of my
tongue.” When a new memory is stored external and internal content are also taken into
consideration. Such as smell, location, environment is remembered along with the
physical and emotional state you were in at the time. This is called Context and State
Dependent. Psychologists believe in order to access this we need the correct cues to
trigger the memory.

A key study by Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) supported this theory by testing how
successful recall was when cues were present. They gave participants a list of words
belonging to 12 categories. For example, one category would be “pets” and the words to
remember would be a list of household animals. When it came to recalling the words,
half the subjects were given category titles as cues and the other half wasn’t. The results
found out that those who were given titles recalled 20% more words than those who
didn’t have the cue. The evidence in this study proves the theory of Cue Dependency is
reliable because it shows that recall was worse when cues were not given. However,
this study was laboratory based and does not reflect how we memorise as we do not
tend to categorise all memories, lacking in ecological validity.

Godden & Baddeley (1975) supported this theory and importantly focuses on context-
dependent forgetting. In their study they gave a group of deep-sea divers a list of words
to memorise and split them up into two. One of the groups had to learn the lists of
words underwater whereas the other group learned on land. Both were then asked to
recall the words either in the same or opposite environment. The results concluded that
subjects who were asked to recall words in the same setting remembered 40% more
than those that had to change. This illustrates that the retrieval of information is
significantly improved if given the context is the same as it was during encoding.
Although Godden’s study supports the theory of retrieval, it has been criticised for
having low ecological validity. For example, the settings used in this study is a lot more
different to actual settings we experience day to day. In addition, Godden used a list of
words for memory recall but in real life we use our memory for more complex
information meaning we cannot generalise these results into real life scenarios. This is
not to say the findings are completely ineffective. The study has useful practical
application in some aspects such as crime. It has proven to be successful by taking the
eye witness back to the location the incident happened to recall more accurate
information.

Another study by Goodwin et al (1969) investigated the importance of state-dependent

forgetting. This time the study is made to see if internal cues are important when it
comes to recall. Goodwin had male participants remember a list of words when they
were either under the influence of alcohol or completely sober. He then tested them on
how well they could recall the words in the opposite states and results showed subjects
recalled the information significantly better when they were in the same drunk/sober
state. He also had them hide money when they were drunk and it was unlikely they
could find the hiding place when sober. This evidence supports the theory of state
dependent memory as it shows people tend to remember information better when their
emotional/psychical state is the same as when learning was taken place.

In conclusion, we know from real life experiences that context and state-dependent
factors do not have that much of an impact on memory otherwise students would
always perform badly in school exams. It is unlikely that this theory is relevant to all
types of information. For instance, procedural skills we learn are unlikely to be affected
by state-dependent forgetting. Nevertheless, there is numerous experimental evidence
and studies to show Retrieval Failure is relevant to understanding everyday
experiences of forgetting.

Another theory of forgetting is Interference. This is when information in the long-term

memory is interfering with one another resulting in them being difficult to remember or
confusing the two. This is more likely to happen when memories are similar to each
other, for example remembering what you ate at work last week. There are two basic
types of interference that can occur; Proactive and Retroactive. Proactive interference
takes place when something you have learnt before disrupts and prevents recall of a
new memory or information. Retroactive is the opposite, when new information being
learnt prevents the recall of old information.

Schmidt et al (2000) did research into retroactive interference to see if there was
evidence to support this theory. He began by randomly selecting former students from a
Dutch school and asked 211 of them to complete a questionnaire on the street names in
the nearby neighbourhood of Molenberg. They were asked to recall as many street
names in the area as possible, other information was collected such as how many times
they visited Molenburg, how often they moved, where they are currently living, etc. By
measuring how many times the individual moved around Schmidt used that to
determine if retroactive interference had occurred. The results showed there was a
direct incline on how many names were remembered matching with the students who
moved outside of Molenberg the most. This provides us with evidence that taking in
new information for instance, new street names, interfere with remembering the old
names. Retroactive interference has taken place in this circumstance and explains
forgetting in real life situations.

Baddeley & Hitch (1977) did another study to investigate retroactive interference in
everyday memory. They asked rugby players to recall teams they had previously played
against, some of them missed a few games due to injuries but others played most during
the season. Results showed players who played most of the games were worse at recall
than those who played fewer matches. This shows due to the result of retroactivity old
information/old team names were forgotten and replaced by the newer information
presented to them. It proves interference was the main cause and not the passing of
time. With the study being naturalistic we can apply this to real life and understand why
this happens.
Another study done by Postman (1960) researched into how retroactivity affects
learning, compared to other studies this was experimented in a lab. Subjects were split
into two groups where they were all asked to remember a list of paired words. The
second group were asked to remember another list of paired words this time different
to the first list they had. Both groups were then asked to recall the lists they were given,
results showed the group that had only one list to remember recalled better than the
second group who had more. This supports the theory of interference because it shows
learning new words interfered with the recall of the first list resulting in participants to
remember less information. Those could argue this study lacks ecological validity
because the task of memorising lists given to subjects is not something we do day to
day, therefore we cannot apply it to real life circumstances.

On the whole, Interference has a number of reliable evidence explaining retroactivity

and proactivity and why it happens. Additionally, outside evidence also supports
interference such as why we forget similar information like phone numbers or people’s
names. However, the theory is argued for being too simplistic and vague as it only
explains forgetting with similar information and not forgetting in all cases. According to
the theory it would predict learning two similar languages would cause too much
confusion and would not be possible but many people are multi-lingual.

Lastly, a less common theory of forgetting is Repression. An idea suggested by Sigmund

Freud states repression is when a memory is buried deep in our unconscious mind to
the point we cannot access it or even know it’s there in the first place. He explained the
human mind to be similar to an iceberg, the tip above water is our daily thoughts and
memories in which we are aware of but below the surface lies our unconscious thoughts
and memories that are hidden from us. He believed repression is a defence mechanism
used to protect ourselves from unhappy and disturbing thoughts. It can take on a
variety of different forms, most of the time it is acquired from childhood and only tends
to show signs during adulthood. With the help of modern therapy psychologists are able
to retrieve these buried memories in order to help people come to terms with their
issues. Freud also believed that all forgetting is motivated, that there is always a reason
behind why we forget.

Levinger & Clark (1961) investigated the effects of using emotional words and
comparing them to neutral ones. They asked subjects to give an associated word to
match the list of emotionally negative and neutral words. The time taken to give
associated words was measured along with responses such as sweating. The results
showed participants took longer to respond to emotional words and produced more
galvanic skin responses which indicates stress. This illustrates motivated forgetting
because participants were more hesitant when it comes to emotionally charged words.
Although this study supports motivated forgetting, it only skims the surface on the
effects. The study does not give us a great deal of details on why this happens.

Another study tested by Elliot (1995) showed people who experienced highly
unpleasant events had forgotten they took place up until later in their life when an
occurrence would trigger their memory. He questioned five hundred people who had
gone through traumatic experiences and results showed 20% of them did not recall
parts of it. This supports Freud’s theory and explains how repression links into certain
types of amnesia in the real word.
There is some clinical evidence to show repression does take place along with evidence
during therapy sessions. Studies have shown victims of early age child abuse do tend to
repress these memories, some undergo therapy to help with depression or other mental
health illnesses to only find out their issue is due to an underlying cause of a repressed
memory. However, there are still controversies surrounding repression as it is
impossible to prove or disprove. Someone who has a repressed memory does not know
themselves this memory is there, even when recovered it is hard to know if it is
accurate and reliable. From our own day to day experience we forget all different types
of information and events, not just traumatic ones so it is highly unlikely repression can
explain everyday forgetting. Even so, there are many people who have experienced
horrid events and don’t account to any forgetting. For example, post-traumatic stress
disorder goes against Freud’s theory. Instead of forgetting as he would predict victims
relive the pain over and over, this hugely contradicts the theory itself.

In summary, there are many theories of forgetting and many of which we experience
day to day. All of them with substantial evidence giving us a better understanding of
why we forget things. By researching into these, we are able to suggest ways to improve
our memory and help people with simple or complicated tasks. For instance, from
research into interference students learning two similar subjects can prevent this from
happening by making sure the learning time between the two is not so close together
and by using separate learning techniques for both. Although the theories cannot give
complete certainty, it does give us more of an understanding as to why and how
forgetting occurs.

Baddeley & Hitch (1977) Cited in Psychology for A level year 1 and AS, London: Jean
Marc Lawton.
Elliott, D. M., And Briere, J. (1995) Cited in Memory and Forgetting. New York: John
Henderson.
Freud, S. (1894) Cited in Memory and Forgetting. New York: John Henderson.
Levinger, G And Clark, J (1961) Cited in Psychology A level year and AS, Fourth Edition.
Oxford: Cardwell, M and Flanagan, C.
Godden, D.R. And Baddeley, A. D. (1975) Cited in Angles on Psychology, 2nd Edition,
Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Goodwin, D.W, Crane, J.B And Guze, S. B. (1969) Cited in Psychology A level year and AS,
Fourth Edition. Oxford: Cardwell, M and Flanagan, C.
Postman (1960) Cited in Cognitive Psychology: A Students Handbook, Fourth Edition.
London: Michael W. Eysenck.
Schmidt (2000) Cited in Psychology for A level year 1 and AS, London: Jean Marc Lawton.
Tulving, E. And Pearlstone, Z. (1966) Cited in Angles on Psychology A level year and AS,
Fourth Edition. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.