The question of the reasons for forgetting is usually approached from two alternative points of view: forgetting is considered either as a "passive extinction" of traces, or as a result of "interference". To make the meaning of these concepts clearer, we will try to present the problem in a simplified form. Let's start with an examination of the trace located in the KP About a fresh trace, we can say that it has the utmost clarity (this is a somewhat vague concept, but here it means "the amount of information available" or its "completeness"), We can talk about forgetting when this trace no longer has the utmost clarity, for example, if some of the information about the sound of this element is lost. This usually only happens in the absence of repetition, since we assume that repetition maintains the legibility of the trace at the original level. Forgetting occurs with such a decrease in the clarity of the trace, at which the given element cannot be restored in memory. The main question that interests us is the reason for the decrease in the legibility of the trace. We will consider two commonly put forward reasons:
1) passive extinction and
2) interference.

Fading is generally understood to mean the decrease in the clarity (or strength) of memory traces over time. It is assumed that only time is needed for such a weakening of the traces - no other causal factors are involved here. This is why we call fading passive. Unlike the fading hypothesis, the interference hypothesis assumes that the cause of forgetting is more active. According to this hypothesis, the clarity of the trace of one or another element decreases as a result of the arrival of new elements in the control panel; thus, the weakening of traces is due not simply to the passage of time, but to the appearance of new information in memory.

It would not be difficult to establish which of these two hypotheses is correct if the following experiment could be carried out. First, you need to present the subject with some element. Then the subject should do nothing for some time - about 30 s (this is the so-called "retention interval"). “Nothing” should be understood in the absolute sense - no repetition (since this would help to maintain the clarity of the track) and no thinking about other things (since this could lead to new information entering the KP and there would be interference). After 30 seconds, the subject would be asked to recall the presented element. If he cannot restore it in his memory, this will speak in favor of passive extinction, since the elapsed time could be the only active factor. Nothing during this period could cause interference. If the element has not been forgotten during this time, we can consider this fact as an argument against the hypothesis of extinction, that is, in favor of the idea of ​​interference.

Unfortunately, such an ideal experiment is not feasible, since it is impossible to imagine a situation in which the subject would do absolutely nothing. However, as we will see later, attempts have been made to get as close as possible to such conditions, and the results have been rather contradictory.

Before discussing these experiments, let us discuss in more detail two alternative hypotheses. Let's start with the interference hypothesis. One version of this hypothesis could be called the "simple cell model" or "displacement model". According to this model, the CP has a certain number of cells - 7 ± 2. Each cell contains one structural unit of the input material. When elements arrive in the CP, each element (structural unit) occupies one cell. When all the cells are full and there is no room for the newly arriving elements, the old elements will have to move somewhere to make room for the new ones. In such a model, each new element entering the filled CP displaces one of the elements located in it, which leads to the forgetting of the latter. Each of the elements contained in the CP has some chances of being displaced.

The crowding out model is of interest in that it helps clarify the more general hypothesis that the forgetting of information stored in the CP is due to interference. One of the implications of this model is that the first few elements that arrive at the CP do not interfere with each other. Obviously, forgetting should not occur until all cells in the control panel are filled: it will begin only when the number of elements exceeds the capacity of the control panel. Another consequence follows from the model: since each element (or structural unit) occupies one cell, which either contains this element or not, each element must either be completely removed (it will not be in the cell), or it will remain entirely in place. However, we know that this is not the case. The phenomenon of acoustic mixing of syllables (for example, the names of letters) contained in the KP can be explained by the partial forgetting of these syllables - the erasure of traces of individual phonemes. If one syllable corresponds to one structural unit, then this kind of partial forgetting is incompatible with the simple cell model.

On the same topic

Medicine is a separate and very important field of human activity, which is aimed at studying various processes in the human body, treating and preventing various diseases. Medicine investigates both old and new diseases, develops new methods of treatment, drugs and procedures.

She has always occupied the highest place in human life, since ancient times. The only difference is that ancient physicians were based either on personal little knowledge or on their own intuition in the treatment of diseases, while modern physicians are based on achievements and new inventions.

Although many discoveries have already been made over the centuries-old history of medicine, methods of treating diseases that were previously considered incurable have been found, everything is developing - new methods of treatment are found, diseases are progressing and so on ad infinitum. No matter how much mankind has discovered new drugs, no matter how many ways they have come up with ways to treat the same disease, no one can guarantee that in a few years we will not see the same disease, but in a completely different, new form. Therefore, humanity will always have something to strive for and activities that can be improved more and more.

Medicine helps people to recover from everyday illnesses, helps in the prevention of various infections, but it also cannot be omnipotent. There are still quite a lot of various unexplored diseases, inaccurate diagnoses, and incorrect approaches to curing the disease. Medicine cannot 100% provide reliable protection and assistance to people. But the point is not only in insufficiently known diseases. Recently, many alternative methods of healing have appeared, the terms correction of chakras, restoration of energy balance, no longer cause surprise. Such a human ability as clairvoyance can also be used to diagnose, predict the course of development of certain diseases, complications.

Brown and McNeill experiment.

Brown and McNeill gave the wording of the word, which caused the person to be ready, "spinning on the tip of the tongue." The man recalled words that were similar in meaning and sound. They called it recalling the ancestral affiliation.

The conclusions about the structure of the DP were obtained: the extraction of a word from the DP can be based on its sound, or on its meaning. In a state of readiness, full meaning extraction is impossible. It was assumed that together with each word, its associations with other words in the DP are stored. Consequently, DP is a vast set of interconnected areas, each of which contains a complex collection of information related to one word or fact.

Network model: DP can be depicted as a network formed by bundles of information links. Similar to the stimulus-response concept, but not quite. This model allows for the formation of various kinds of associations, therefore, not all associations are the same. The result is neo-associationism. Associative networks have the highest possible ordering and compactness.

Attenuation theory. Information from the VPC can be transmitted to the VDP through repetition. If information is not used or repeated, then over time it is forgotten. This is the view of theorists who believe that forgetting is explained by attenuation. All memories are the result of some changes in the central nervous system; it is believed that as a result of information processing, a "trace" arises - a certain change in the nervous tissue, this trace, when not used, fades away in the same way as a path that is not walked overgrows. Once vivid impressions (for example, the phone number that I had 10 years ago) dissipate when they are not used. These abandoned tracks suffer not from lack of coding, or even from lack of reproducibility, but from neglect. Fading theory is intuitively appealing.

Interference. Not only does interference in itself lend itself better to experimental control than other models of forgetting. It is also on the main road of associationism, a powerful movement that has dominated the study of human memory and learning for nearly a century. According to the associationist tradition, associative connections are formed between specific stimuli and specific reactions, which are retained in memory for as long as other competing information does not interfere with them. For example, if you have learned that fact A is related to fact B, then such an associative relationship can be represented as AB, or as a pair association. If new information is presented, it will interfere with the ability to reproduce B in response to A.

The idea behind the interferential forgetting theory is that information - old or new - somehow makes it difficult to reproduce other information stored in the fiberboard. LTP consists of complex associative structures that assimilate a huge amount of new information, and there is a paradox in this remarkable ability: new information, easily adaptable to well-organized cognitive structures, can obscure information so skillfully woven into these structures earlier.

There are two main paradigms for studying interference: retroactive inhibition (RT) and proactive inhibition (PT). RT is manifested in the effect of suppressing old material with new, and PT - in suppressing new material with old.

One of the solutions to the dilemma about the interference of material learned earlier with material learned later is to postulate two systems of DWT. When we discussed memory models, we came across Tulving's ideas about memory. He makes a distinction between semantic and episodic memory, and it can lead us to answer the question of why, despite the fact that interference is so widespread in the laboratory, in everyday life, new information has almost no erasing effect on past knowledge. Previous research into the effects of interference relied mainly on the person's memorization of words or meaningless syllables, which, according to Tulving, occurs in a person's episodic memory. Episodic memory, as we remember, stores temporarily encoded information, while semantic memory stores information about the use of language - about words, meanings, connections and rules. In a laboratory study of the effect of interference on verbal memorization, subjects were asked to learn how to associate two verbal units, say woj-bell. Reply word bell(the bell) is not actually learned in the laboratory - the subject knows its meaning, and it is stored in his semantic memory. What is actually learned is bell - this is the answer to woj i.e. learning events limited to a specific laboratory situation. According to Tulving, this connection is stored in episodic memory. In addition, if traditional psychological experiments on verbal learning were carried out mostly using episodic memory, then the laws of interference are also based mainly on the properties of episodic memory and do not work (at least not at all) in semantic memory. It seems that episodic memory is highly susceptible to interference affecting the entire vast flow of information that moves in and out of it, while semantic memory remains relatively isolated from this information flow and its influences. To illustrate this argument, we turn to the content of semantic memory. We store in it the rules of English grammar, the multiplication table, that January is the first month of the year, that Oklahoma on the map looks like a gravy boat, that London is in England, that honey is sweet, etc. No amount of new information will make me forget any of the above; interference hardly affects the reproduction of such facts. Summing up this point of view, let us say that two different memory systems operate in DVP: one is episodic, subject to interference, and the other is semantic, not sensitive to it.

Situational forgetting. So far, we have looked at the principles of forgetting as they are presented from a traditional associationist point of view. According to another position, coming from the informational approach, we fail to reproduce this or that information not due to fading or interference, but because the signs of the current situation are too different from what we are trying to remember. It is not so much the theory of "forgetting", describing how memories are lost, but the idea that unreproduced memories are actually alive and located somewhere in an associative network, and only the right stimulation is required to release them. This explanation for forgetting, called "situational forgetting," has been proposed by Tulving (1974); it originates from the fairly generally accepted idea that learning always takes place in a specific context and that we code information in connection with the immediately perceived environment. Forgetting, or more precisely, the inability to reproduce something from memory is the inability to find signs that would correspond to the elements encoded in memory. Let's take a simple example. Students who could not answer correctly on the exam often complain: "I knew the answer, but I did not know what he wanted from me." In this example, the features of the playback situation and the features of the encoding situation do not correspond to each other. My on-call question: "What is the name of your fourth year teacher?" signs accompanying the initial learning situation. Students' introspection protocols indicate that the search process reflects the self-generation of features characteristic of the immediate environment in the initial learning situation (for example, "the school I went to ...", "the location of classrooms ...", "I imagine a teacher - tall and thin ").

The idea of ​​situational forgetting, intuitively attractive, has been tested empirically by Tulving and Pearlston (1966). The subjects were presented with a list of nouns divided into categories (for example, "bomb" and "cannon" were in the section weapon). Half of the subjects were given a list containing the names of the original categories (traits), but all were equally instructed to memorize specific examples rather than categories. Subjects were then asked to reproduce as many words as they could. The presence of categorical features had a very significant effect on the number of words reproduced, especially in the case of large lists of 48 words. An even more convincing confirmation of the theory of situational forgetting (or situational reproduction) was provided by Tulving and Psotka (1971). Here the subjects were presented with lists of 24 words, divided into six categories of 4 words each. Here's an example of such a list:

The subjects in this experiment clearly saw that the words were categorized. After three presentations of each list, they were given the task of free reproduction. Groups were given 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 lists. After 10 minutes of "neutral session", the subjects were given the names of all these categories (for example: buildings, landscape, etc.) and

When played without categorical features, the results deteriorate sharply with the increase in the number of memorized lists - quite an expected result in the light of what we know about the properties of RT. Much more important and surprising is the categorical reproduction rate curve. These data show that when the subject is given a categorical sign, reproduction is at the same level as in normal reproduction immediately after memorization. When reproducing on categorical grounds, a sharp deterioration in reproduction attributed to RT does not occur. These findings force us to revise the basic principles of the theory of interference. According to Tulving (1974):

"The retroactive interference observed in the entire reproduction test without categorical features reflects changes in the reproduction of information, and not the loss of information from memory traces. Changes in the information content of the reproduced material occur due to memorization of additional lists and their reproduction. The presentation of the category names revives the information in the subject's cognitive situation that was missed during the T3 test, thus making it possible to recover the information stored in the memory store during the initial memorization. "

Since Tulving associates reproduction with the circumstances of coding, the question arises: how closely should the features be connected during encoding with the features during reproduction in order to effectively perform the function of features when extracting information? Tulving's answer reads: "Specific features facilitate reproduction if and only if information about them and their connections with PZ-words (words to be memorized - RS) is stored simultaneously with information about the presence of PZ-words in a given list "(1968, p. 599). There is no doubt that this principle, called by Tulving the "principle of specific coding" (PSK), means that the feature of extraction can only be effective if it was encoded during memorization. This bold conclusion is at odds with a study that showed that memory recognition (recognition of a memorized element, for example, when choosing one answer from several suggested in a test or when recognizing a friend's face) is better under certain circumstances than recalling from memory ( reproduction of a memorized element - for example, when answering the question: "Where is Buckingham Palace?"). We will be able to fully appreciate this moment if we try to think about ... "What is his name? You know ... here it is spinning on the tip of the tongue" ... or we will try to remember, say, the names of famous people whose initials are "С .WITH.". One of the arguments in favor of the superiority of memory recognition is the fact that reproduction includes identification. If you are wandering through the fiberboard in search of some fact, say someone's name, you must not only find it, but also identify it after you have found it.

The well-founded and empirically supported claim that recognition is superior to reproduction has been challenged by the ingenious experiment of Tulving and Thompson (1973). It consisted of four stages.

First (stage 1), the subjects studied a list of word pairs (word-sign and word-target, for example: head-sows, bath-need, nice-si niy), to memorize the second word of the pair (target word). Then (step 2) they were shown a list of randomly located words that had close associations with individual target words (for example: dark, want, sky), and asked to write down their free associations (up to four) for each of them. As expected, the subjects with free association often (in about 70% of cases) reproduced the original target words. At stage 3, where the attribute word was not present, the subjects were asked to circle each word from the list they reproduced, in which they recognize the target word from the original list; the subjects recognized on average 24% of these words. At stage 4, the final stage of the experiment, the subjects were asked to reproduce the target words when stock feature words; in this case, they correctly reproduced 63% of the target words. Replay defeated recognition! Of all the theories of forgetting that we have studied, based on attenuation, interference and dependence on features, the last - the theory of situational forgetting - can easily explain the presented results. The recognition failure and the remarkable success of the reproduction reflect the lack of suitable information for the reproduction process. The role of forgetting is insignificant - the leading role belongs to the difficulties of information recovery, but these difficulties are explained by the inadequacy of the signs of reproduction. Only the features that were present during the initial learning or specific to the coding work effectively for reproduction. Thus, situational forgetting is based on the principle of specific coding.

Contrary to the clear superiority of reproduction over recognition observed in Tulving's experiments, there are compelling arguments against the idea of ​​situational forgetting and the accompanying theory of specific coding. Santa and Lomvers (1974, 1976), using the same target words as Thompson and Tulving (1970), and v basically a similar procedure, found weak and strong word-signs for each word to be memorized. The subjects looked at a card containing target words, typed in capital letters, and feature words, which, as the subjects were explained, would help them remember target words. After they scanned the list of 24 words, they were asked to reproduce the target words, suggesting weak signs to help. The procedure was repeated four times, each time with different feature words and target words. For the last time, the subjects were divided into 3 groups: (1) those who were asked to reproduce without word-signs; (2) those who were asked to reproduce by strong words that were never included in the experiment (for example, "white" with black,"meat" with steak,"stupid" with stupid or "ice" with cold); and (H) those who were asked to reproduce according to strong words-signs and were given instructions that the words-signs proposed to them were not previously presented, but are strongly associated with words-goals. The result was reproduction rates of 5.4 and 5.33 for the first and second groups and 10.07 for the third group, i.e. they indicated simply outstanding performance in the group that received strong traits plus instruction. The authors argue that these strong traits, although not coded during wordlist study, do an excellent job of reproduction traits. The cardinal rule of the principle of specific coding, as we recall, is that the features of reproduction facilitate reproduction only if their connection with the words to be memorized has been established during memorization.

Box theory

In the model of Atkinson and Shifrin, any act of memory is carried out using the participation of one or several structures (SR CP, DP), which act as "boxes in the head", and the information in each of them goes through 3 stages: coding, storage, retrieval, forgetting.

To pass into long-term memory, information must be repeated. In the DP itself, information is encoded primarily by meaning. Function: gaining long-term experience; to exchange information; to maintain a sense of personality.

Reasons for forgetting in long-term memory: interference (proactive and retroactive inhibition), motivated forgetting, extinction. Extraction: recognition, direct reproduction, re-memorization, reconstruction, confabulation (false memory), imagination.

Later it was shown that other explanatory models of memory organization besides the metaphor of “boxes in the head” are also possible.

In particular, one of the lines of criticism of these theories was to consider the conditions for transferring information from short-term memory to long-term memory. Recall that in the theory of Atkinson and Shifrin, this occurs due to repetition.

P.I. Zinchenko:

PI Zinchenko studied involuntary memory depending on the content, structure and motivation of activity [Involuntary memorization. M .: Publishing house of APN RSFSR, 1961]. It was shown that involuntary memorization is a product of purposeful activity and cannot be reduced to direct imprinting (to the one-sided effect of objects on the senses).

The main idea proposed by Zinchenko (P.I. Zinchenko, 1962, 1981) is that words encoded by more meaningful means will be stored in involuntary memory better than words encoded by other, more superficial means. Thus, the memorization of words strongly depends on the goal that the subject faces during the presentation of the material. It is assumed that different goals activate different systems of connections, since people have different attitudes towards the material.

In these studies, a technique was used based on working with objects included in the activity, and with objects not included in the activity, but present in the field of perception.

As a stimulus material, 15 cards were used, where various objects and numbers were presented. The work was carried out with images of certain objects on cards, in the corner of which numbers were written. One group of subjects was asked to classify the depicted objects according to a certain criterion. For children - arrange in such places on the table, to which they would approach (kitchen - kettle). Pupils - sort them into groups of subjects. Another group was instructed to place cards on a sheet of numbered cells (as in a lotto game). The recall task was given only after the end of interaction with these objects.

The subjects of each group had to reproduce from memory first what was the object of their activity (for the first group - objects, for the second number), and then what was the background (for the first group - numbers, for the second - objects).

It was found that in both cases, involuntary memorization was carried out (for different ages - in different proportions), but it was better remembered that which was related to the goal of the activity, and not just was in the field of vision, without being included in the activity ... In addition, different age dynamics can be traced in relation to objects-objects and background objects. The retention of objects increases with age, while the retention of background objects decreases.

Bottom line, activity with objects is the main condition for involuntary memorization.

In one experiment, subjects were given 10 sets of 4 words. An example of such a set: HOUSE-WINDOW-BUILDING-FISH. They had to associate the first word with one of the other words, but the instructions for each of the three groups of subjects were different. In one group, subjects were asked to establish a "logical" connection between the first word and one of three other words (for example, HOUSE-BUILDING). In another group, subjects were asked to establish a specific connection between the first word and one of the other words (for example, DOM-WINDOW). In the third group, subjects were asked to name a word whose meaning differs from the meaning of the first word (DOM-FISH). Using different instructions, Zinchenko believed that the subjects would not only have different goals for the material, but that they would also need to learn the meaning of each word. After a brief interrupting task, the subjects were asked to reproduce the presented words. As a result, in the group where the subjects formed logical connections between the first and another word, the target word was reproduced with a higher frequency than in other groups; the reproduction of words with specific word connections was better than with the establishment of connections out of meaning.

Thus, the "level of reproduction", as Zinchenko called it, is determined by the purpose of the action. When the subjects are given a set of memorization or instructions to process material at one level or another, this greatly affects the reproduction.

The experiment outlined by Zinchenko was of great theoretical importance for substantiating the concept of "processing levels", which had a great influence on cognitive psychology and our ideas about human memory.

100 RUR first order bonus

Select the type of work Diploma work Term work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Examination work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essays Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text PhD thesis Laboratory work Help on-line

Find out the price

There are two main theories of forgetting. According to the first, forgetting is the result of inactivation of the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying learning. Lack of exercise is, in this case, the main reason for the disappearance of mnemonic traces, that is, the organic substrate of memory. Forgetting in this case will be spontaneous: the learned responses and the connections corresponding to them, without being activated under the influence of repeated stimulation, gradually weaken over time. Based on the results of experimental psychological research, Cayson (1924) and McGeche (1932) put forward this theory, a supporter of which in the United States was Thorndike (1921) ( This is the main meaning of the Thorn-Dyke Exercise Law: "If, for some time, the connection between the situation and the response, which has a changeable character, does not renew, the intensity of this connection weakens, and therefore, other things being equal, the likelihood of a response associated with the situation decreases." ...), a number of serious objections. These authors believe that the main drawback of the theory is that it cannot explain all the facts of forgetting: the memorized material can be stored for a long time without any changes and in the absence of exercise, sometimes there is even an improvement in memory (the phenomenon of reminiscence), and along with this, with a deterioration in preservation forgetting of mnemonic responses can be explained not only by inactivation, but also by some other factors.

However, these critical remarks, while emphasizing the limitations of this hypothesis and the possibility of the existence of other mechanisms of forgetting, in no way diminish its merits. Despite numerous studies of this problem carried out over the past 90 years, no psychological concept has yet been able to provide a comprehensive explanation of changes in memory over time. With the present state of our knowledge, the process of disappearance of biophysiological traces of learning does not seem a priori incompatible with the processes of inhibition, reactivation, or conservation, which accelerate or slow down the disappearance of the mnemonic trace. Most modern neurophysiologists and psychologists dealing with this problem do not at all deny this possibility.

The second concept is based on the fact that forgetting is the result of active processes that lead to a decrease in the likelihood of persisting mnemonic responses. Within the framework of this general concept, two groups of theories should be distinguished. One of them is psychological theories developed at the level of behavior: such are, for example, neoassocianist theories that explain forgetting mainly by internal interferences of memorized material or activity performed before (proactive interference) or after (retroactive interference) memorization. Other theories are psychophysiological, in which an attempt is made on the basis of the observed behavioral reactions to draw a conclusion about the nature of the neurophysiological processes underlying memory; Given the current state of neurophysiological knowledge in the area of ​​research that interests us, we can say that most of these theories are insufficiently substantiated, and nevertheless one of them, namely the theory of Müller and Pilzeker (1900), deserves attention. We will look at the main hypotheses related to the above concepts.

Everyday forgetting, forgetting theories

Forgetting ... How familiar this concept is to each of us! And how painfully we try to remember the forgotten! And on the exam: I knew it, but I forgot, no, it's just a real disaster! Each of us at least once in our life has met such a phenomenon as amnesia, partial or complete loss of memory.

Memory loss can also occur in a person after a serious illness, stress, trauma, in old people suffering from multiple sclerosis. But enough exclamations and enumerations, it's time to sort out this very forgetting. What is it? This is, first of all, the inability to remember or incorrectly recognize and reproduce the information stored in memory.

At the moment, there are many theories of forgetting: psychological, physiological and medical. Since we are more interested in the cognitive approach to this problem, then we will deal with this direction to a greater extent, although we will have to touch on other approaches as well.

Everyday forgetting

One of the commandments familiar to us from childhood: repetition is the mother of learning. The same thing happens with memory. The more often we remember some information, facts or events in our life, the better we remember them.

What happens to information that we don't remember? Does she disappear without a trace? So we mentioned - a trace, yes, any information that has fallen into our memory leaves a trace.

Sometimes, to restore, remembering information requires little effort, and sometimes it is necessary to re-memorize the material. And the easier it is to remember and memorize, the deeper the trace was left, and the depth of this trace depends on the strength of the assimilation of the primary information.

The loss of information is greatest immediately after perception, and then forgetting is slower, which is also confirmed by the experiments of Ebbinghaus. If the material is not repeated after perception, then it is gradually forgotten.

The largest percentage of forgetting occurs on the first day and decreases as the interval from perception to reproduction increases. Reminiscence (vague memory) may occur over time. Forgetting happens the faster, the less understandable the information for a person, or this information is simply not interesting to him.

When a person receives new information without "digesting" the previous one, this happens in short-term memory, then he can forget the previous information in whole or in part.

If forgetting occurs in long-term memory, then this may be due to either the destruction of the trace, or replacement by other information, similar in meaning to the original, or information that crosses out the primary, or emotionally more brightly colored. Physiologically, forgetting is explained by some types of cortical inhibition, which negatively affect temporary neural connections.

Interference theories

There are also several theories in cognitive psychology that explain the nature of forgetting. Fading theory presents this process as the result of the fading or weakening of the memory footprint. And according to theories of interference, forgetting occurs as a result of the superimposition of later information on the previous one, which makes it less possible to extract the past memory trace.

Let's try to present the theory of interference in a simpler way. If a person has studied certain information, and then a new one comes in the same way, but different in details. What's happening? There may be such cases: the first information interferes with the memorization of new information, and as a result it is forgotten; and the opposite can also happen, the old information is forgotten, as if being replaced by the new one.

An example can be given, you have to work on a computer at home and at work, the keyboard settings on these computers are different, you cannot change the settings at work, because there are people using this computer who are used to these settings, and you are used to your keyboard layout. And what is the result? At home, you are confused by pressing the keys corresponding to the layout of your work computer, and at work, on the contrary, at home.

Attenuation theory

According to the theory of attenuation, information that has not been in demand for a long time gradually disappears. It is possible that this is due to age-related changes in a person. But I cannot completely agree with this theory.

Let me give you my example: my great-uncle had a Kalmyk nanny as a child, she spoke Kalmyk to him, and he easily communicated with her in childhood in her native language. After many years, he completely forgot this language, which, it would seem, confirms the theory of attenuation.

But, in extreme old age, to the surprise of his loved ones, he suddenly spoke in an unknown language. Everyone thought it was just the babbling of a madman, and, quite by accident, one of the doctors who was invited to him turned out to be a little familiar with this language, because his grandmother was Kalmyk. How happy the grandfather was when he heard the words familiar to him! But until the end of his life he no longer spoke Russian and was angry that they did not understand him.

Most likely, the language information is stored in different "memory storages" in an encoded form, my grandfather first lost the code of the store with the Kalmyk language, and then it is not clear how it was found, but at the same time the code of the store of the Russian language was lost.

Information coding

And, perhaps, all information is stored in different storages, or compartments with their own code. And, if it is encoded in some way, then there is no way to extract it. It's the same as if you returned from a long business trip, and the code on the door of your house was changed, you suffer for a long time until someone comes to your aid.

But the worst thing is that with your memory hardly anyone can help you, except yourself. It often helps to remember if you try to recreate the situation in which memorization took place and the code is found.

As a child, I was often told about this. Relatives used this opportunity, for example, my grandfather had such a ritual, he returned to the place where he forgot something and emotionally said: "Damn, damn it was joking and give it back!" - and, as a rule, found what was lost.

Remember now the testimony in court, there are a lot of court shows on television now, and we see how easy it is to confuse a witness to an experienced lawyer. The witness has such a layer of all sorts of information and stress that he is no longer able to understand himself where the truth is, and an experienced lawyer introduces his version of the event with leading questions. As a result, it happens that the testimony is invalidated.

However, there are times when it is simply necessary to forget information that brings grief and suffering. Fortunately, the body apparently "foresees" such situations, and there are cases when terrible information is lost.

What is forgetting in psychology? It is one of the main memory processes. They also include memorization and reproduction, preservation and recognition. They are inextricably linked, which means that neither of them can be perceived separately from the other.

But the topic of this article is forgetting itself. Its reasons, features and course of the process itself, factors influencing it, types, recommendations for combating this phenomenon will be considered.

What is forgetting?

In psychology, it is customary to give the following definition of forgetting. This is the loss of the ability to reproduce and recognize previously memorized. One already makes it clear that forgetting depends on at least three processes mentioned above. It is most closely associated with memorization. This is easily explained: one is impossible without the other. Until the information is memorized, it cannot be forgotten. This is a very important point for identifying the process.

Classification

There are two equivalent classifications of forgetting, each composed according to its own characteristic.

According to the first, a partial phenomenon is distinguished (this means that such forgetting in psychology is interpreted by incomplete or erroneous reproduction of previously memorized) and complete (absolute loss of information). It is believed that what the brain (consciousness) filters as insignificant, unimportant is forgotten.

The second classification determines the temporary (due to inhibition of nerve connections) and long-term (their extinction) manifestation of the process in question.

Why does it arise?

In general, the reasons for forgetting are divided into two separate groups. The first considers this process as natural. These are, for example, poorly remembered information or forgotten evening thoughts that a person pondered just before going to bed. We also tend to forget bad memories: sleep perfectly erases them from memory. This is where the saying goes: "The morning is wiser than the evening."

The second group is smaller. In essence, these are all cases of unnatural forgetting: for example, the consequences of psychological problems. But this reason is also based on the principle that a person often says "I forgot" about troubles, and not happy events.

Forgetting process

The forgetting process is uneven. “I don’t remember” is a statement that the information cannot be reproduced. But psychologists tend to consider not already a perfect process, but how it happened.

The tendency for forgetting is that at first it goes at a fast pace, and then more and more slowly. For example, memorizing something: in the first 5 days of memorization, the data will be erased sooner than after this period. Of course, it should be borne in mind that everyone's memory is different, and therefore such a strict framework does not determine everything.

Features of forgetting

An interesting feature of forgetting is improved delayed reproduction: that is, memorization most accurately manifests itself after a couple of days. This phenomenon in psychology is called reminiscence.

Forgetting as the main problem of human memory

Memory mechanisms are often associated with memorization. But some scholars argue that in order for it to be fully studied, it is worth focusing on forgetting, not remembering.

Forgetting mechanisms

There are several answers to the question about the mechanisms of forgetting.

The first of them is not even essentially forgetting: a person claims: “I have forgotten” not because the information has been erased from his consciousness, but because it was not placed there. At the moment when the data was transmitted, they were not heard, taken into account, and, as a result, remembered. Example: a student in a lesson who completely sincerely does not remember what was asked the last time, then, when it was said, was distracted by something else: for example, by a schoolmate.

The second answer focuses on fleeting events. This is the information received, but in the end it was never transmitted either in a short or short way. Most likely, the brain considered it not so significant, and to a greater extent it is.

Classification of the reasons for forgetting

Earlier in this article, two large groups of reasons for forgetting were already discussed. But experts also single out the main ones, concretized.

crowding out

Repression is a kind of forgetting that occurs exclusively on a subconscious level. It becomes an adaptation tool when a person unknowingly blocks out terrible memories that can traumatize them. According to Freud, deep in the subconscious, this information remains, and it can be "pulled out" from there using hypnosis or revealed in dreams.

Amnesia, the extreme of the type in question, is defined as a mental disorder. It is characterized by complete or partial loss of personal memories. Amnesia has its own interesting features: it is known that although a person does not remember who he is, his habits and skills remain. This means that victims of amnesia do not need to be retrained to write, read, dress, eat and cook their own food.

Forms of amnesia

Hysterical amnesia is the most well-known form of this mental disorder. It is not caused by physiological or organic causes. Often, such amnesia is part of it.In addition, it is temporary, which means that a person's memory will soon be fully restored. In addition, in the treatment of such amnesia, doctors, relatives and friends of the victim contribute to him: special medications are prescribed, others talk about the past, a person gets used to who he is, gradually remembering it.

Physiological causes of amnesia are alcohol and various psychotropic and narcotic substances, diseases and injuries, in particular, brain damage. This forgetting can be both temporary and long-term. It's called organic amnesia.

Absent-mindedness and forgetfulness in everyday life are signs of amnesia in elderly people. This is a detailed reproduction of the past, but an extremely extensive orientation in the present. This form of amnesia, which is most often permanent, is called global demential. Psychologists correlate it with Ribot's law, or the law of memory reversal. Also relevant is the name - the law of regression. It is named after the psychologist who formulated it back in the nineteenth century. Ribot's law is typical for the elderly or patients with certain diseases. Forgetting (destruction of memories) begins with recent things, more and more affecting the past. The last stage is forgetting habits, skills and abilities. This process concerns the destruction of the personality and instinctive memory - the most persistent part of it.

If forgetting according to Ribot's law occurs due to illness, it is treatable, and in the order in which the memory is lost. However, if the reason is old age, then all that remains is to maintain the current state of affairs (regression progresses at a slow pace).

Interestingly, despite the fact that the media often covers cases of amnesia, it is far from being as common as one might think. In cases of forgetting, it even takes a small percentage.

Suppression

Suppression is the second major reason for forgetting. Unlike repression, it, in turn, is conscious. A person may try to forget a person or an event, an act that he regrets and an action for which he is ashamed, etc.

Fading and distortion

Both fading and distortion are much more common than suppression or repression.

Unclaimed knowledge sooner or later begins to fade away: for example, a person knows that some moment has already been saved in the memory of his phone, which means that keeping it in his memory is no longer so important, it is enough just to understand where this information is. Skills and abilities are almost not subject to extinction, in contrast to specific data. In addition, it is known that the earlier knowledge is acquired, the better it is remembered. Example: a foreign language learned in early childhood will remain in memory stronger than it would have been learned in adolescence, or even in adulthood.

However, extinction cannot be unequivocally considered the main cause of forgetting. After all, it often happens that a person, without tricks, says “I don’t remember” about significant things that he uses more than once, but at the same time useless little things are constantly in his mind.

Interference

Distortion, or interference, is the mixing of new events (data, knowledge, information) with old memories. This leads to subsequent partial forgetting. In addition, interference also interferes with memorization. It is easy to see how memorization and forgetting are related. Even the factors influencing them are sometimes similar, connected or mutually generate each other. Specifically in this case under consideration, two factors such as proactive and retroactive interference are important.

Retroactive interference

Retroactive interference is a phenomenon in which the reproduction of old knowledge is blocked when new knowledge is acquired. In this case, the data should be somewhat similar to each other: for example, two foreign languages. A person who knows English and has begun to learn German will face difficulties in reproducing English words that, until recently, did not cause him any problems. At the same time, German counterparts will be remembered much easier.

Another example: preparation for exams. Retroactive interference will not be a hindrance when physics and chemistry are studied at the same time, but one after another, read topics on economics may well block each other.

Proactive interference

Proactive interference is the opposite of the previous one. In this case, the old knowledge, on the contrary, interferes with the assimilation of new ones. They mix and distort.

It is easy to consider proactive interference using the example of memorizing a paragraph: the beginning is easily remembered due to the effect of primacy, the end - because the knowledge is fresh and easy to get in their memory, they are, so to speak, on the surface. But the middle will either be distorted or completely erased. It will be more influenced by proactive interference.

Psychological theories about forgetting

The processes of memory in psychology are also explained by thinking. From this point of view, forgetting is presented as the disintegration of associations. To maintain the integrity of the links, it is recommended to repeat and use the stored information.

Ebbinghouse on forgetting

G. Ebbinghaus, a psychologist from Germany, two centuries ago studied the pattern with which a person forgets information. Ebbinghaus' law of forgetting has not lost its relevance over the years and is still used even in modern psychology. The example given above for proactive interference also clearly reflects the law under consideration, because the scientist found out that it is the information at the beginning and at the end that is remembered best. Ebbinghaus drew his conclusions as a result of numerous experiments. His invention is the forgetting curve, which illustrates the pattern of this process. It can be briefly described as follows: the more time passes from the moment of memorization, the less the influence of this information.

Also, Ebbinghaus found that data that have meaning are remembered by a person better than those that do not carry any meaning.

How can you reduce forgetting?

• When memorizing, it is necessary to comprehend the information (based on the above conclusion made by G. Ebbinghaus). That is, if you need to remember something, it is better to use the good old wisdom - it is better to learn and understand, and not cram.
• Repetition of information, and the time between memorization and the first repetition should be at least forty minutes. The number of repetitions is maximum in the first days and gradually decreases.

The recommendations suggest that for high-quality memorization and in order to avoid forgetting, it is necessary to devote more than one day to assimilating information. "Victory loves preparation", high-quality and long-term.

Forgetting: is it really that bad?

To the question of what forgetting is in psychology, a very precise and scientific answer is given without emotional coloring, only a definition. But if you ask a common man in the street about him, he will also give him his own attitude, and most often negative. We believe that memory and forgetting are opposite concepts. Remembering is good, not remembering is bad. Of course, forgetting can cause difficulties and obstacles, but there are also positive aspects to it. Like a hard drive, human memory is cleared, which gives more room for new information. Moreover, as discussed above, phenomena such as amnesia can be beneficial because they block memories that traumatize consciousness. Ultimately, all memory processes help this complex mechanism to function clearly, including memorization, and forgetting, and recognition, and reproduction.

Human factor

Forgetting in psychology is studied in connection with other memory processes, but still in a general sense. The laws of forgetting work with certain, but not absolute, precision. It is important that someone has a better memory, someone worse. Some techniques and instructions have to be "customized", taking into account the characteristics of the organism and thinking, which is why forgetting is a process inherent in everyone, becomes individual for everyone.