Explanations for forgetting: proactive and retroactive interference and retrieval failure due to absence of cues.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to explain forgetting through interference (proactive and retroactive) and retrieval failure due to the absence of cues, with research. The exam skill is to keep proactive and retroactive interference distinct, to apply the encoding specificity principle, and to support each explanation with the standard studies.

Interference

Interference theory explains forgetting from long-term memory as the result of memories competing with and disrupting one another, especially when they are similar. The direction of the disruption defines the type: in proactive interference an older memory runs forwards to disrupt a newer one, while in retroactive interference a newer memory runs backwards to disrupt an older one. The role of similarity is crucial and is the most testable prediction of the theory. McGeoch and McDonald (1931) had participants learn a list of words to perfect recall and then learn a second list that varied in how similar it was to the first; recall of the original list was worst when the second list was synonyms (most similar) and best when it was nonsense syllables or numbers, demonstrating that interference is strongest with similar material. This research is a strength because it is controlled and replicable, but it is also a limitation: much interference research uses artificial word lists in the lab, which may lack ecological validity, since everyday learning is more meaningful and spaced out, so interference may be a less important cause of everyday forgetting than the lab suggests.

Retrieval failure

Retrieval failure offers a different account: the memory is still stored (available) but cannot be reached (accessible) because the necessary cues are missing. Tulving's encoding specificity principle states that a cue will only help recall if it is present both when the memory is encoded and when it is retrieved. Context-dependent forgetting concerns external cues in the environment, while state-dependent forgetting concerns internal cues such as mood or physiological state. The implication is that recall improves when the conditions at retrieval match those at encoding.

In Godden and Baddeley's classic study, deep-sea divers learned a list of words either on land or underwater and were then tested in either the same or a different environment. Recall was about 40% worse when the learning and recall environments did not match, showing that the absence of the original external context acts as a retrieval failure. State-dependent forgetting has been shown similarly, for example when material learned while alert is harder to recall when drowsy. A major strength of retrieval failure is its real-world application: the cognitive interview deliberately reinstates the context of a crime to trigger more accurate recall, and the advice to revise in conditions similar to the exam follows directly from the principle. A limitation is that the encoding specificity principle is difficult to test scientifically, because we cannot independently confirm whether a particular cue was encoded, which risks circular reasoning.