Memory

Jake Rees
07.
STM:Echoic
LTM:Semantic

08. A researcher would change the procedure of their research to make it more applicable to the normal
word. For example they could conduct there experiment in a natural environment rather than in a lab setting.
This would mean that the participants would be in a more natural state of mind as they wouldn’t feel the
same pressure as they would if they were in a lab.

09. Zina was much more frightened and anxious than Amanda was. This means that Zina probably didn’t
register what was going on as deeply as Amanda as she was caught up in the moment and wasn’t focusing on
things that she would remember. She also may find it hard to recall the events as she would be in a very
different state when giving the testimony to when the event was happening. This means that she could be
having recall failure as she isn’t receiving any cues that she experienced while the incident was happening.
However, Amanda’s statement would probably be more accurate as she wasn’t as anxious so would be in a
more similar state in the two events which would help with her retrieval.

10. The psychologist would have to consider the amount of trauma that bringing up the incident five months
later could cause as Zina and Amanda may be traumatised by it and interviewing them about it could make it
worse.

11. Interference can be used as an explanation of forgetting. Interference is when two memories get jumbled
up and cause the both memories to either be remembered wrong or be forgotten. There are two types of
forgetting; retroactive and proactive. Retroactive interference is when and older memory interferes with a
newer memory and Proactive interference is when an new memory interferes with an old memory.
An experiment was conducted to test how each type of interference effects memories. It consisted of two
groups, A and B. Each group was given a shopping list and asked to remember the contents in the correct
order. They were then given a second shopping list and were asked to do the same thing. After a short break
Group A was asked to recall the items on the first shopping list in order and Group B were asked to recall the
items on the second list in order. The participants in Group A were experiencing proactive interference as
their memories of the items on the second shopping list were interfering with their memories of the items on
the first list. The participants in Group B were experiencing retroactive interference as their memories of the
items on the first list were interfering with their memories of the items on the second list.

The fact that there is lots of other research to back this up shows that this is a strong explanation of
forgetting. There have been lots of psychologists that have researched interference. This shows that
interference is an accurate and reliable explanation of forgetting.