Wikipedia:School and university projects/Psyc3330 w10/Group3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:20, 11 March 2010

Latest revision as of 18:12, 13 October 2018

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

'''Decay theory''' proposes that [[memory]] fades due to the mere passage of time. [[Information]] is therefore less available for later retrieval as time passes and memory, as well as memory strength, wears away.<ref name="emtwo"> Berman, M.G. (2009) In Search of Decay in Verbal Short Term Memory [Electronic Version]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), pp. 317-333. Retrieved March 6, 2010</ref> When we [[learn]] something new, a [[neurochemical]] “memory trace” is created. However, over time this trace slowly disintegrates. Actively [[memory rehearsal|rehearsing]] information is believed to be a major factor counteracting this temporal decline.<ref name="emfive">Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2008). Forgetting in immediate serial recall: decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? [Electronic version]. Psychology review, 115(3), pp. 544-576. Retrieved March 6, 2010.</ref> It is widely believed that [[neurons]] die off gradually as we age, yet some older memories can be stronger than most recent memories. Thus, decay theory mostly affects the [[short-term memory]] system, meaning that older memories (in [[long-term memory]]) are often more resistant to shocks or physical attacks on the [[brain]]. It is also thought that the passage of time alone cannot cause [[forgetting]], and that Decay Theory must also take into account some processes that occur as more time passes.<ref name="emtwo" />

==History==

The term decay theory was first coined by [[Edward Thorndike]] in his book “The Psychology of Learning” in 1914<ref name="kevone"> E. L. Thorndike, The psychology of learning, N. Y., Teachers College, 1914, p. 4.</ref>. This simply states that if a person does not access and use the memory representation they have formed the memory trace will fade or decay over time. This theory was based on the early memory work by [[Hermann Ebbinghaus]] in the late 1800s<ref name="kevtwo"> Ebbinghaus H. 1885/1913. Memory. A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Teachers College/Columbia Univ. (Engl. ed.)</ref>. The decay theory proposed by Thorndike was heavily criticized by McGeoch and his interference theory <ref name="kevthree"> McGeoch, J. (1932) Forgetting and the Law of Disuse [Electronic Version]. Psychology Review, 39, pp. 352-370. Retrieved March 6, 2010</ref>. This led to the abandoning of the decay theory, until the late 1950s when studies by John Brown and the Petersons showed evidence of time based decay by filling the retention period by counting backwards in threes from a given number. This led to what is known as the [[Interference theory#Proactive interference|Brown-Peterson Paradigm]]<ref name="kevfour"> Brown, J. Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 10, 12-21.</ref> <ref name"kevfive"> Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. Shortterm retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 193-198.</ref>. The theory was again challenged, this time a paper by Keppel and Underwood who attributed the findings to [[Interference theory#Proactive interference|proactive interference]]<ref name="kevsix"> Keppel, G., & Underwood, B. J. Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1962, 1, 153-161.</ref>. Studies in the 1970s by Reitman<ref name="kevseven"> Reitman J. S. Mechanisms of forgetting in short term memory. Cognitive Psychology. 1971, 2, 185-195.</ref> <ref name="keveight> Reitman J. S. Without surreptitious rehearsal, information in short term memory decays. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour. 1974, 13, 365-377.</ref> tried reviving the decay theory by accounting for certain confounds criticized by Keppel and Underwood. Roediger quickly found problems with these studies and their methods <ref name="kevnine"> Roediger HL, Knight JL, Kantowitz BH. 1977. Inferring decay in short-term-memory—the issue of capacity. Mem. Cogn. 5(2):167–76.</ref>. Harris (1952) made an attempt to make a case for decay theory by using tones instead of word lists and his results are congruent making a case for decay theory <ref name="kevten"> Harris, D. J., Pitch Discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Vol 24,1952, 750-755.</ref>. In addition, McKone (1995, 1998) used implicit memory tasks as opposed to explicit tasks to address the confound problems. They provided evidence for decay theory, however, the results also interacted with interference effects <ref name"kevelev"> McKone E. 1995. Short-term implicit memory for words and non-words. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21(5):1108–26.</ref> <ref name="kevtwel"> McKone E. 1998. The decay of short-term implicit memory: unpacking lag. Mem. Cogn. 26(6):1173–86.</ref>. One of the biggest criticisms of decay theory is that it can’t be explained as a mechanism and that is the direction that the research is headed.

==Inconsistencies==

[[Image:decaycorrect.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Graph of recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if Decay Theory accounts for forgetting.|Recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if decay theory accounts for forgetting.]]

[[Image:interferencecorrect.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Graph of recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if Interference Theory accounts for forgetting.|Recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if ''[[interference theory]]'' accounts for forgetting.]]

Researchers disagree about whether memories fade as a function of the mere passage of time (as in decay theory) or as a function of interfering succeeding events (as in [[interference theory]])<ref name="emone">Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2009). No evidence for temporal decay in working memory [Electronic version]. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(6), pp. 1545-1551. Retrieved March 4, 2010.</ref>. Often, evidence tends to favour interference related decay over temporal decay <ref name="emtwo" />, yet this varies depending on the specific memory system taken into account.