Author: ajb8679

It’s all too common to forget a well-known name, misplace our keys, or find it difficult to recall specific details of a previous incident. Though we may think of our memories as precise information recorders, storing data for perfect replay, the truth is far more intricate. We are unaware of how frequently our recollections let us down. We’ve been studying the nature of forgetfulness, its various expressions, and numerous important theories that attempt to explain it in my psychology class. I’ve been really curious to find out more information on these subjects.

 

When we forget, availability or accessibility is the main problem. Because recall would be difficult if a memory trace were destroyed or deteriorated, storage and availability are related. On the other hand, retrieval is referred to as accessibility. Even when the memory is in storage, it is not accessible. Context-dependence and the tongue-tip phenomenon demonstrate how accessibility increases the likelihood of forgetting.

 

Access is also restricted by intentional and reactive intervention. Proactive interference is the term used to describe the process by which memories from the past disrupt the recall of recent knowledge. “Retroactive interference” is the term used to describe the situation in which one finds it difficult to recall past events due to new knowledge. Something similar happens to me when I’m learning new vocabulary for a lesson! When assessment and practice are not regular, accessibility progressively declines.

 

Numerous theories try to explain forgetting. The notion of trace decay states that if memories are not used, they will gradually erode. Interference hypothesis states that similar memories compete with one another and muddle recall. The cue overload principle states that if a stimulus is associated with too many memories, the associations will all be weaker. For many reasons, our memories are not as reliable as we might believe!

 

Knowing the science of forgetting helps me to understand how exceptional memory can be under the correct conditions. It has aided in my understanding of the boundaries of my memory so that I may create compensatory tactics such as note-taking, reducing distractions, and repeating key information. Now, when I periodically have a memory lapse,  I understand why.

Many claim that they’re able to remember each aspect of past occurrences, piece by piece and scene by scene. But is there a way or theory to prove this? The short version is no, we can’t; if we forget something small, our brain will attempt to fill in the blanks with other information. The term “misinformation effect” refers to the process by which the brain integrates false information into a memory in order to interpret sensory input.

 

The Loftus Study was carried out to demonstrate how versatile and effortlessly influenced people’s memories are. Elizabeth Loftus created the Loftus Study with the goal of examining memory flexibility. In this study, forty-five students watched brief films—five to thirty seconds—in which vehicle crashes occurred. After seeing the films, the students were asked to estimate how quickly they thought the automobiles were traveling before they collided. The term “contact”, “hit,” “smashed” and “bumped” had an impact on memory formation since different students were asked the same question using different synonyms which technically meant the same thing but were processed by the brain differently. Even though they had watched the same film, students’ estimations of how fast the car was moving varied according to the words used. 

 

A week break followed the beginning of the study to see if the brain would try to fill in extra information to connect to the words used when the students were asked about the speed of the cars. The next question asked about the crash was if there was any shattered glass from the accident. The study ended up showing that words like smashed and hit provided more answers of yes, there was glass broken than the group who had the crash described as contact or bumped. There was actually no broken glass in the video shown to any of the groups but the week break made their brains associate the severity of the crash with the word used to describe it. This demonstrated that the brain may manufacture fake occurrences that ultimately drastically change memory, in addition to perceiving events differently based on small variations in the account of the events. 

 

A few years back, my dad was in a car accident on the highway driving home from the airport. Though I am not fully aware of the severity of the accident, I know that the car was totaled and my dad had some pretty serious neck injuries. These memories and information I have of the accident make my brain assume it was very bad. My dads description of the accident was that he was hit by a drunk driver at 90 mph which makes my brain associate things like broken glass, dents in the car, and possibly even a flipped car. The brain fills in these gaps with the information I already know about car accidents and knowing that it takes a lot for the car to be totaled. This proves the Loftus experiment to be true because even though I was not at the site of the accident, my brain fills in the gaps to tell me what happened and more details than i was actually given about the accident.

lecture  11 – Josh Wede Pennsylvania State University
https://moderntherapy.online/blog-2/loftus-and-palmer-study-explained