Investigations into Learning and Forgetting Contd - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Investigations into Learning and Forgetting Contd PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 10c4a5-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Investigations into Learning and Forgetting Contd

Description:

List 1 KIP-TEK (Until Learned) List 2 KIP-POJ (1, 5, 10, or 20 Times) Test KIP-? Report both TEK and POJ. Evidence for. the Unlearning Hypothesis. 1 5 10 20 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:18
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: jason132
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Investigations into Learning and Forgetting Contd


1
Investigations into Learning and
ForgettingContd
  • The Associationist Approach
  • To Memory Research
  • (1885 to the Cognitive Revolution - around 1960)

2
Where We Left Off
How Does Interference Cause Forgetting? The
Response Competition Hypothesis is WRONG Maybe
forgetting is just the opposite of learning?
3
The Unlearning Hypothesis Melton and Irwin (1940)
Retroactive Interference List 1 JEP-BIP List
2 JEP-RUL Test JEP-? Correct Response is
BIP Learning JEP-RUL might weaken the JEP-BIP
association
4
A Test of The Unlearning Hypothesis
Barnes and Underwood (1959) List 1 A-B (to
Perfection) List 2 A-D (1, 5, 10, or 20
Times) Test A-? Report both B and D
responses For example, List 1 KIP-TEK (Until
Learned) List 2 KIP-POJ (1, 5, 10, or 20
Times) Test KIP-? Report both TEK and POJ
5
Evidence for the Unlearning Hypothesis
RED LINE List 1 Responses BLUE LINE List
2 Responses
Likelihood Of Report
1 5 10 20
6
Evidence for the Unlearning Hypothesis
Conclusions As List 2 responses ?, List 1
responses ? Therefore, Strengthening List 2
Associations weakens List 1 Associations?
7
Evidence Against the Unlearning Hypothesis
Postman and Stark (1968) List 1 A-B (to
Perfection) List 2 A-D (1, 5, 10, or 20
Times) Test Was A presented with B, E, or
F? and Was A presented with D, G, or H?
8
Evidence Against the Unlearning Hypothesis
Postman and Stark (1968) List 1 KIP-TEK (to
Perfection) List 2 KIP-POJ (1, 5, 10, or 20
Times) Test Was KIP presented with TEK, HIF, or
LOC? and Was KIP presented with POJ, RIN, or WOX?
9
Evidence Against the Unlearning Hypothesis
RED LINE List 1 Responses BLUE LINE List
2 Responses
Likelihood Of Correct Response
1 5 10 20
10
Evidence Against the Unlearning Hypothesis
Conclusions As List 2 Practice ?, Recognition
of List 1 responses is UNAFFECTED Therefore, Lis
t 1 Associations are NOT weakened by
strengthening List 2 associations
11
How Does InterferenceCause Forgetting?
The Response Competition Hypothesis is
WRONG Associations are not Unlearned
because people recognize them if they are
presented Maybe List 1 Responses are SUPPRESSED?
12
The Response Set Suppression Hypothesis
Postman, Stark, and Fraser (1968) The List 1
Associations are NOT weakened by learning List 2
Associations List 1 RESPONSES are suppressed
by learning List 2 Associations (due to greater
recency of learning)
13
Evidence for The Response Set Suppression
Hypothesis
Postman, Stark, and Fraser (1968) List 1 A-B
(e.g., JEP-WOP) to Perfection List 2 A-D (e.g.,
JEP-SOV) to Perfection Group 1 Test List 1
Recall A? (JEP?) Correct response is B (or
WOP) Group 2 Test List 2 Recall A? (JEP?)
Correct response is D (or SOV)
14
Evidence for The Response Set Suppression
Hypothesis
Postman, Stark, and Fraser (1968) Both groups
tested 20 Minutes and 48 Hours after learning
the lists
15
Evidence for The Response Set Suppression
Hypothesis
BLUE LINE List 1 Recall Group RED LINE List
2 Recall Group
Likelihood Of Correct Response
20 min 48 hrs
16
Evidence for The Response Set Suppression
Hypothesis
Results 1. List 1 responses were impaired when
List 2 was learned relatively recently 2. List
1 responses were not impaired when List 2 was
much less recent Conclusions Recency of
learning List 2 suppresses List 1 responses?
17
An Alternative to the Response Set Suppression
Hypothesis
A Distinctiveness Hypothesis (Underwood Freund,
1968) Interference occurs because, due to their
similarity, people cannot separately access A-B
and A-D pairings
18
An Alternative to the Response Set Suppression
Hypothesis
A Distinctiveness Hypothesis (Underwood Freund,
1968) Prediction Interference should be less if
learning of A-B pairings is made DISTINCT from
learning of A-D pairings
19
Underwood Freund, 1968
Group 1 List 1 A-B (e.g., JEP-WOP) 32
Times and then on SAME DAY List 2 A-D (e.g.,
JEP-SOV) to Perfection Group 2 List 1 A-B
(e.g., JEP-WOP) 32 Times and then THREE DAYS
LATER List 2 A-D (e.g., JEP-SOV) to Perfection
20
Underwood Freund, 1968
Test for Both Groups (1 hour delay after List
2) List 2 Response Required A? (JEP?) Correct
response is D (or SOV) Will separating the Lists
in time lead to less Proactive Interference?
21
Evidence for the Distinctiveness Hypothesis
Likelihood Of List 2 Response
Same 4 Day Days
Time Between List 1 and List 2
22
Evidence for The Distinctiveness Hypothesis
Results Interference is much reduced if time
separates learning List 1 and List
2 Conclusion Interference occurs because
experiences are hard to distinguish from one
another
23
Postman and Gray (1967)
Group 1 List 1 A-B (e.g., JEP-WOP) To
Perfection List 2 A-D (e.g., JEP-SOV) - To
Perfection Group 2 List 1 A-B (e.g., JEP-WOP)
To Perfection List 2 A-D (e.g., JEP-SOV) - To
Perfection AND While learning List 2 report List
1 responses
24
More Evidence for the Distinctiveness Hypothesis
Postman and Gray (1967) Test For Both
Groups (One Week Later) List 2 Response
Required A? (JEP?) Correct response is D (or SOV)
25
More Evidence for the Distinctiveness Hypothesis
Likelihood Of List 2 Response
Group Group 1
2
26
How to Achieve Distinctiveness?
  • What We Know
  • Distinctiveness increases as the time between
    learning two similar associations is increased
    (Underwood Freund, 1968)
  • Distinctiveness increases if people think about
    two similar associations simultaneously (Postm
    an Gray, 1967)
  • CONTRADICTION?

27
How to Achieve Distinctiveness?
  • The Underlying Principle
  • Encoding Variability
  • (Martin, 1971)
  • Thinking about the same stimulus differently
  • will create distinctive representations in memory

28
How to Achieve Distinctiveness?

The Underlying Principle Encoding
Variability (Martin, 1971) List 1 A-B (e.g.,
JEP-WOP) - To Perfection List 2 A-D (e.g.,
JEP-SOV) - To Perfection How to prevent
interference between JEP-WOP and JEP-SOV?
29
How to Achieve Distinctiveness?

The Underlying Principle Encoding
Variability (Martin, 1971) List 1 A-B (e.g.,
JEP-WOP) - To Perfection List 2 A-D (e.g.,
JEP-SOV) - To Perfection Think of JEP as meaning
something different When it is paired with WOP
than with SOV
30
An Example of Distinctiveness through Encoding
Variability

Two Associations BANK VIOLIN BANK LAMP How
to avoid interference? (RIVER) BANK
VIOLIN (MONEY) BANK - LAMP
31
An Example of Distinctiveness through Encoding
Variability

Two Associations JEP WOP JEP SOV How to
avoid interference? (JEOPARDY?) JEP WOP (JEEP?)
JEP - SOV
32
General Conclusions
  • Failure of recall (or forgetting) does not mean
    that learned information has been lost.
  • -Interference has minimal effect on being able
    to recognize responses that people have
    difficulty recalling.
  • Forgetting is caused by the failure to access
    learned information.
  • Accessing information in memory depends on its
    distinctiveness.
  • -Similarity to other information in memory
    blocks access to target information

About PowerShow.com