Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885) conducted the first systematic study of forgetting using himself as the only participant. What did his "forgetting curve" reveal?
A: Memory decays slowly and linearly over several months
B: Forgetting is most rapid in the hours immediately after learning, then slows — following a negatively accelerating (exponential) curve
C: Most forgetting occurs during sleep, when new neural connections displace old ones
D: Memory strength remains stable for approximately one week before rapid decay begins
Ebbinghaus memorised lists of nonsense syllables (e.g., "DAX," "BUP") and then measured how much time was saved when relearning them at various intervals. He found that approximately 50% of information was forgotten within the first hour, with further losses over days, but the rate of forgetting progressively slowed — producing the characteristic negatively accelerating "forgetting curve." Despite its early date and single-participant design, this finding has been replicated many times. The curve supports trace decay theory but does not definitively rule out interference, as Ebbinghaus himself noted.
Proactive interference (PI) occurs when:
A: New learning disrupts the recall of older memories
B: Previously learned material interferes with the acquisition or recall of new material
C: Emotional distress prevents encoding of new information
D: Sleep deprivation impairs memory consolidation
In proactive interference, earlier learning acts forward (pro = forward) to disrupt later learning. A classic example: having learned French, a student learning Spanish may find French vocabulary intruding when attempting to recall Spanish words. Underwood (1957) demonstrated PI dramatically: participants with more previous list-learning experience showed much worse recall of a new list — not because they were worse learners, but because accumulated prior learning interfered with the new material. PI is especially strong when the old and new material are similar.
Underwood (1957) examined forgetting in laboratory studies across dozens of previous experiments and found that participants who had learned many previous word lists forgot more of a new list than those with little prior experience. What does this finding best support?
A: Retroactive interference — new learning disrupts old memories
B: Proactive interference — prior learning interferes with recall of new material
C: Decay theory — old memories weaken through simple disuse
D: Repression — emotional material is more likely to be forgotten
Underwood reanalysed recall data across 14 experiments and found a striking pattern: after 24 hours, participants who had learned only one list recalled about 75% of it, while those who had learned many previous lists (in other experiments) recalled only about 25%. This cannot be explained by decay (they all had the same 24-hour interval) or by retroactive interference from new learning in the interval. The only factor that varied systematically was the amount of prior learning — implicating proactive interference as a major source of forgetting in laboratory verbal learning.
McGeoch (1932) proposed that interference — not mere decay — is the primary mechanism of forgetting. What evidence did he offer against pure trace decay theory?
A: He showed that forgetting slows during sleep, when the passage of time still occurs but interference is minimised
B: He argued that mental "rust" — passive decay through non-use — is a valid physical mechanism supported by neuroimaging data
C: He demonstrated that more time between encoding and recall always improves memory through consolidation
D: He showed that increasing rehearsal during a retention interval abolishes all forgetting
McGeoch's (1932) key argument against trace decay was the finding — replicated by Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) — that forgetting is much slower during sleep than during equivalent periods of wakefulness. If forgetting were purely a function of time (as decay theory implies), the same amount of time should produce the same amount of forgetting regardless of what happens during it. The fact that sleep dramatically reduces forgetting suggests that interference from waking mental activity — not the mere passage of time — is the primary driver. McGeoch famously described decay theory's "law of disuse" as analogous to iron rusting — a purely metaphorical notion without a specified neurological mechanism.
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) gave participants a list of words from different categories (e.g., four animals, four vehicles) and then tested recall in two conditions: free recall vs. cued recall (with category names provided). What did this demonstrate?
A: Providing category cues had no effect on recall, showing that accessibility depends only on the strength of the original memory trace
B: Cued recall was dramatically superior to free recall, showing that much "forgotten" information is still stored but unavailable without appropriate retrieval cues
C: Free recall was superior to cued recall because cues introduced interference from competing category members
D: Cued recall was better only for items at the beginning of the list (primacy effect)
Tulving and Pearlstone found that providing category name cues dramatically improved recall — often by a factor of two or more. Words that appeared "forgotten" in free recall were successfully retrieved when the appropriate cue was given. This is the key distinction between availability (whether information is stored in memory at all) and accessibility (whether it can currently be retrieved). The finding established retrieval failure — the absence of suitable cues — as a major cause of apparent forgetting, entirely separate from storage failure. This formed the basis of Tulving's encoding specificity principle.
Godden and Baddeley (1975) tested memory in deep-sea divers who learned and recalled word lists either underwater or on land, in four conditions (learn underwater/recall underwater, learn land/recall land, learn underwater/recall land, learn land/recall underwater). What did they find?
A: The underwater context disrupted encoding so severely that recall was lower in all underwater conditions
B: Memory was significantly better when the learning and recall environments matched — demonstrating context-dependent forgetting
C: There was no difference across conditions, suggesting that environmental context has no effect on memory retrieval
D: Recall was best when participants learned on land and recalled underwater, because of reduced distractions
Recall was approximately 40% better when the learning and recall contexts matched (both underwater or both on land) compared to mismatched conditions. Divers who learned on land recalled poorly when tested underwater, and vice versa. This context-dependent memory effect supports Tulving's encoding specificity principle: environmental cues present during encoding become part of the memory trace, and retrieval is most successful when those same cues are present at test. The study has important practical implications — for example, it has been suggested (though contested) that people should study in conditions similar to their exam environment.
Tulving's encoding specificity principle (1983) provides a unifying account of retrieval failure. What does it state?
A: Memory is best when encoding is deep and semantic; context is irrelevant
B: A retrieval cue is effective to the extent that it overlaps with the information encoded at the time of learning; recall is best when cues at test match cues at encoding
C: All information encoded in a specific emotional state can only be retrieved in that same emotional state
D: Retrieval cues improve memory only for episodic but not semantic material
The encoding specificity principle states that memory retrieval depends on the match between what was encoded at learning and what is available at retrieval. A cue is effective not because it is objectively associated with the target word in general, but because it was specifically encoded alongside the target in that learning context. For example, if "bank" was encoded in the context of "river bank," then the cue "money" — normally a strong associate of "bank" — will be relatively ineffective. This principle accounts for context-dependent and state-dependent forgetting: both types of cues become part of the memory trace and facilitate retrieval when they are reinstated.
State-dependent memory refers to:
A: The finding that information encoded in a specific geographical location is best recalled in that same location
B: The finding that memory recall is better when the internal physiological or psychological state at retrieval matches the state at encoding
C: The finding that emotional memories are stored more strongly than neutral memories, regardless of retrieval state
D: The tendency to recall information better after sleeping than after remaining awake for the same period
State-dependent memory refers to the advantage of matching internal states (physiological, emotional, or pharmacological) between encoding and retrieval. Classic demonstrations include Goodwin et al. (1969), who found that words learned while intoxicated were better recalled when intoxicated again than when sober. Similarly, mood-congruent recall (Bower, 1981) showed that people recall more positive memories when happy and more negative memories when sad — though evidence for pure state-dependent effects (beyond mood congruence) in human memory is more mixed. Like context-dependent forgetting, state-dependent memory is explained by encoding specificity: the internal state becomes part of what is encoded.
Glömska
Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885) conducted the first systematic study of forgetting using himself as the only participant. What did his "forgetting curve" reveal?
Om det här quizet
Why do we forget? Psychologists have identified several distinct mechanisms — from the passive decay of unused traces to active interference between competing memories, and from the failure to retrieve information that is still stored to the role of context and state in determining accessibility.
This quiz covers the major theories and key studies: Ebbinghaus on the forgetting curve, Underwood and McGeoch on interference, Tulving and Pearlstone on retrieval failure, and Godden and Baddeley on context-dependent forgetting.