Instructions – the following assignment is written in form of research paper.

There was a creative

attempt to present it in a different manner in order to challenge one’s own capability.

Abstract

We heard it lot that ‘what is learned cannot be unlearned’ but what about the question that how we
forget? Once we learned about the systematic approach of memories, we might come across an
approach that makes information saved in our LTM (Long term memory) but in most instances it
should be true that info should not leave our LTM. This small research initiative tries to contemplate
forgetting and critically analyse the forgetting theories with a forgetting lens.

Introduction

Historical anecdotes of forgetting

Forgetting or even “misremembering” is a topic that dates back to the early days of experimental
psychology. Hermann Ebbinghaus, a Prussian psychologist, pioneered the empirical study of memory
under controlled conditions (Hoffman, Bamberg, Bringmann, & Klein, 1987). His master work
(Ebbinghaus,1885/1913) reported on 19 of his studies using himself as a subject. His basic measure of
forgetting was the savings method, which involved seeing the reduction or saving in the number of trials during
re-learning compared to original learning. Forgetting was
very rapid over the first hour or so after learning, with the rate of forgetting slowing considerably thereafter
These findings suggest that the forgetting function is approximately logarithmic.

Psychological literature on forgetting – through a critical lens

1st theory of forgetting was given in the early 19th century. It is called trace decay theory of forgetting by
Ebbinghaus, 1914. It states that if we don’t access memories, they will fade over time .

Ebbinghaus empirically believed that whenever we try to learn something , our brain will undergo
neurochemical changes called memory traces Memory
retrieval requires us to
revisit those traces that the brain formed when encoding the
memory. The trace decay theory implies that the length of time
between the memory and recalling determines whether we will
retain or forget a piece of information. The shorter the time interval,
the more we will remember, and vice versa.
Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) tested trace decay theory in a study in which two students were either
awake or asleep during the retention interval. According to trace decay theory, forgetting should have been
equal in the two conditions. In fact, there was much less forgetting when the students were asleep between
learning and test. Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) concluded that there was more interference with memory
when the students were awake during the retention interval. Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) concluded that there
was more interference with memory when the students were awake during the retention interval. Hockey,
Davies, and Gray (1972) pointed out a confounding of variables in the study by Jenkins and
Dallenbach (1924).

Critical analyse - There is very little direct support for trace decay theory. If all memory traces are subject to
decay, it is perhaps surprising how well we can remember many events that happened several years ago and
which are rarely thought about. (Conway et al., 1994). Does decay cause forgetting? For memory over
the long-term, the answer is generally agreed to be “no” (e.g., McGeoch, 1932). For memory
over shorter time-periods, however, debate continues (e.g., Altmann and Gray,
2008; Lewandowsky et al., 2009 it t has been argued that forgetting demonstrated
by Baddeley and Scott (1971) cannot be explained without recourse to trace decay. The
trace decay theory, however, doesn’t explain why many people can
clearly remember past events, even if they haven’t given them
much thought before. Neither does it take into account the role of all
the events that have taken place between the learning and the
recall of the memory. Just like the serial probe task suggests that
displacement theory is not "enough," decay theory fails to cover all
instances of forgetting and remembering. It is also extremely difficult to design
experiments to exclude all the effects that can suggest decay in memories (Gross & McIlveen 1999).
Hence it is generally held nowadays that decay theory is not fruitful enough to pursue, and that
memory loss is rarely due to neurological decay, with obvious exceptions such as Alzheimerís (Solso
1995). The evidence from the neurosciences is at best equivocal; partly there is a lack of evidence for
the decay theory, and partly there is a difficulty in framing experiments to test the theory, the
difficulty being finding ways to simulate learning followed by complete inactivity in a context allowing
the screening out of other effects (Jenkins & Dallenbach 1924).

Theory 2 – interference theory

The interference theory was the dominant theory of forgetting
throughout the 20th century. It asserts that the ability to remember
can be disrupted both by our previous learning and by new
information. In essence, we forget because memories interfere with
and disrupt one another.
The first study on interference was conducted by German
psychologist John A. Bergstrom in 1892. He asked participants to
sort two decks of word cards into two piles. When the location of
one of the piles changed, the first set of sorting rules interfered with
learning the new ones, and sorting became slower.
 Proactive and retroactive interference are two kinds which literature discusses
Proactive take place when old memories prevent making new ones.
This often occurs when memories are created in a similar context or
include near-identical items. )( example )
Retroactive occur when old memories are altered by new ones. Just
like with proactive interference, they often happen with two similar
sets of memories.
TESTS OF INTERFERENCE THEORY OF FORGETTING AS APPLIED TO
EXTRAEXPERIMENTAL SOURCES OF INTERFERENCE HAVE BEEN GENERALLY
NEGATIVE. THE HYPOTHESIS WAS TESTED THAT THE NEGATIVE FINDINGS RESULT
FROM THE FACT THAT LINGUISTIC ASSOCIATIONS, PRESUMED TO INTERFERE, DO NOT
DO SO BECAUSE OF THEIR HIGH LEVEL OF LEARNING, THE DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR
LEARNING OVER TIME, OR BOTH
the conclusions reached by Baddeley and Scott (1971) have largely dominated the field for
the past three decades.” Here, we argue that an interference-based explanation originally
dismissed by Baddeley and Scott. It is assumed that the memory traces of these non-target
items are suppressed or inhibited in order to overcome their interfering effects and it is
claimed that this inhibition has a longer-lasting effect on the strength of the suppressed
memory traces. the theoretical status of inhibition as an explanation for interference and
forgetting is problematic(Raaijmakers & Jakab, 2013)

Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Jakab, E. (2013). Rethinking inhibition theory: On the problematic

status of the inhibition theory for forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2),

98–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.002

Psychology, P. (2023). 5 Theories of forgetting (Memory). Practical Psychology.

https://practicalpie.com/theories-of-forgetting/

Theory 3 : The displacement theory describes how forgetting works

in short-term memory. Short-term memory has a limited

capacity and can only hold a small amount of information—up

to about seven items—at one time. Once the memory is full,

new information will replace the old one. Free recall method

studies often support the idea of the displacement theory of

forgetting. This theory is pretty solid and has stood the test of
 time. Displacement theory plays neatly into the Multi-Store

Model of Memory. This model shows that while some

information reaches long-term memory, other pieces of

information in short-term memory storage are simply

forgotten. Serial positioning effect that include primacy and

recency effect are certain experiments demonstrating free

recall .

However, the correct interpretation of these experimental results is still controversial, and it is

presently unclear whether displacement is actually distinct from decay or interference,

or even whether it is a combination of the two mechanisms (Gross & McIlveen 1999).

Gestalt theory The Gestalt theory of forgetting is closely related to the better-known Gestalt theory
of perception. The theory says that memories are not lost but instead undergo qualitative changes
over time, bringing them more into line with a cleaner, more streamlined view of the world. The
main evidence for this was the inability over time of experimental subjects to reproduce particular
artefacts (e.g. drawings), and instead for them to rationalise them in a sense into a more tractable
and regular form. However, the Gestalt theory has few if any adherents nowadays, (a) as researchers
were more able to explain the experimental phenomena in terms of experimental bias (e.g. in terms
of subjectsí inability to draw the artefacts well enough anyway), and (b) because it has not proved
fruitful as a research paradigm (Baddeley 1976).

Retrieval failure theory says that forgetting occurs when the correct retrieval cues are not
produced to get at the contents of memory. The clearest sign of this type of forgetting is the tip-of-
the-tongue phenomenon, where subjects know that they know a word, can even describe it or ëseeí
it, but cannot correctly produce it at the proper time. Tulving (1968) provided experimental evidence
that retrieval failures are generally the best explanation of forgetting the contents of LTM. Tulving
and Thompson (1973) suggested an encoding specificity principle, which says that recall is better if
the same cues are available on recall as were present on learning. This cue-dependent forgetting is a
failure of the retrieval cues to match the encoded nature of items in memory (Solso 1995). External
cues are less important for encoding specificity than internal ones. In other words, the state of the
environment at recall need not match the state of the environment at learning (except in directly
salient ways), but if the subjectís internal states at recall match those at learning, the possibility of
recall is greatly enhanced (Clark et al 1987). These results tend to support Penfieldís theory (1969)
that memories are never lost from storage, but instead lose cue-connection when forgotten. This
theory is generally supported by psychologists (Loftus & Loftus 1980), although a sizeable minority
are unimpressed with it (Eysenck 1993). Loftus warns of the dangers of construction of false
memories by combining long-buried memories with more recent suggestion, e.g. in recent cases of
recovered ëmemoriesí of childhood abuse (Loftus 1997).

The psychological literature is not as helpful as it might be, partly because forgetting has been a
somewhat neglected topic, and partly because forgetting is seen as negative rather than positive
action.

Psychodynamic view

Freud (1915, 1943) emphasised the importance of emotional factors in forgetting. He argued that very
threatening or anxiety-provoking material is often unable to gain access to conscious awareness, and he
used the term repression to refer to this phenomenon. Freud’s ideas on repression emerged from his clinical
experiences; The evidence has come from studies on normal individuals
known as repressors, having low scores on trait anxiety (a personality factor relating to anxiety
susceptibility) and high scores on defensiveness. Repressors describe themselves as controlled and
relatively unemotional. According to Weinberger, Schwartz, and Davidson (1979), All four groups were studied
by Myers and Brewin (1994). Repressors were much slower than the other
groups to recall negative childhood memories (see Figure 6.13). This did not happen because repressors had
enjoyed the happiest childhoods: semi-structured interviews indicated they had experienced the most
indifference and hostility from their fathers.

There is also non-experimental evidence of repression, with large numbers of adults apparently
recovering repressed memories of sexual and/or physical abuse they suffered in childhood. Childhood trauma .