2.4: The interference theory (IT)

Question 1

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks)

Answer 1

The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory

Question 2

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
When is interference more likely?

Answer 2

Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition

Question 3

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.

Answer 3

Newer information may overwrite earlier information

Question 4

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, when is interference less likely to occur?

Answer 4

However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning

Question 5

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
How can this occur?

Answer 5

This can occur as:
1. Proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number)
Or,
2. Retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one)

Question 6

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

First AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 6

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory

Question 7

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.

Answer 7

Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology

Question 8

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
Example

Answer 8

For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is

Question 9

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.

Answer 9

Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM

Question 10

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
Why is this a strength?

Answer 10

This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting

Question 11

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

Second AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 11

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations

Question 12

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
Why is this?

Answer 12

This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words

Question 13

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.

Answer 13

Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays

Question 14

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
Why is this a limitation?

Answer 14

This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory

Question 15

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this,

Answer 15

As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised

Question 16

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
Example

Answer 16

For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later

Question 17

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
What does this mean?

Answer 17

This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life

Question 18

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore,

Answer 18

Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life

Question 19

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

Third AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 19

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later

Question 20

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
Why is this a limitation?

Answer 20

This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget

Question 21

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
What does this mean?

Answer 21

This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting

Question 22

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting.

Answer 22

The interference theory also only really explains forgetting when 2 sets of information are similar, for example when simultaneously learning French and Welsh at school

Question 23

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting.
The interference theory also only really explains forgetting when 2 sets of information are similar, for example when simultaneously learning French and Welsh at school.

Answer 23

This does not happen very often and so interference cannot explain forgetting in the majority of real-life settings

Question 24

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting.
The interference theory also only really explains forgetting when 2 sets of information are similar, for example when simultaneously learning French and Welsh at school.
This does not happen very often and so interference cannot explain forgetting in the majority of real-life settings.

Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 24

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is However, some research studies have considered the effects of interference in more everyday situations

Question 25

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting.
The interference theory also only really explains forgetting when 2 sets of information are similar, for example when simultaneously learning French and Welsh at school.
This does not happen very often and so interference cannot explain forgetting in the majority of real-life settings.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is However, some research studies have considered the effects of interference in more everyday situations.
Example

Answer 25

For example, Baddeley and Hitch (1977) wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time, so they asked rugby players to try to remember the names of the teams they had played so far in that season, week by week.
Because most of the players had missed games, for some, the ‘last team’ they played might have been two weeks ago, three weeks ago, or more.
The results very clearly showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place. Much more important was the number of games they played in the meantime, meaning that a player’s recall of a team from three weeks ago, for example, was better if they had played no matches since then

Question 26

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting.
The interference theory also only really explains forgetting when 2 sets of information are similar, for example when simultaneously learning French and Welsh at school.
This does not happen very often and so interference cannot explain forgetting in the majority of real-life settings.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is However, some research studies have considered the effects of interference in more everyday situations.
For example, Baddeley and Hitch (1977) wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time, so they asked rugby players to try to remember the names of the teams they had played so far in that season, week by week.
Because most of the players had missed games, for some, the ‘last team’ they played might have been two weeks ago, three weeks ago, or more.
The results very clearly showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place. Much more important was the number of games they played in the meantime, meaning that a player’s recall of a team from three weeks ago, for example, was better if they had played no matches since then.
Who is this further supported by?

Answer 26

This is further supported by Burke and Skrull (1988), who presented a series of magazine adverts to their participants, who had to recall the details of what they had seen, for example the brand names.
In some cases, the participants had more difficulty in remembering earlier adverts and in other cases, they had more difficulty in remembering the later ones.
The effect was greater when the adverts were similar (the adverts were for identical products by different brands), which is a phenomenon is known as competitive interference

Question 27

Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting (16 marks).
The interference theory is where forgetting occurs when similar material is confused at recall from long-term memory.
Interference is more likely when material is similar, because it creates response competition.
Newer information may overwrite earlier information.
However, interference is less likely to occur when there is a gap between the instances of learning.
This can occur as proactive interference, where previously stored information interferes with the recall of more recently learned material (such as the memory of an old phone number disrupting attempts to recall a new phone number), or as retroactive interference, where more recently coded material interferes with the recall of previously coded material (such as the memory of a new car registration number preventing recall of an older one).

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research evidence from laboratory studies that support interference theory.
Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have been carried out into interference, so interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
For example, McGeoch and McDonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of material and found that the more similar the inference is to the words being remembered, the worse recall is.
Most of the studies into interference show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
This is a strength, because laboratory experiments control for the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, there is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the laboratory than real-life situations.
This is because the stimulus materials used in most studies are artificial, such as lists of words.
Participants are tasked with learning these lists and learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables, such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and their birthdays.
This is a limitation, because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the laboratory and interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in the laboratory.
As well as this, there is no doubt that the majority of laboratory experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised.
For example, in the time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them.
For practical reasons, these time periods are relatively short, so a participant may have to learn one list of words and then a second one 20 minutes later and then recall one of them a few minutes later.
This means that the whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour and this is a limitation of the interference theory, because we do not normally learn and remember information like this in real life.
Therefore, interference theory has limited validity and application to real life.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that another limitation of interference theory is that much of the research supporting it does not investigate whether the information has ‘disappeared’ or can be recovered later.
This is a limitation, because there is no clear findings or evidence as to why people forget.
This means that there is no evidence to prove the theory, so it is, in fact, not a valid explanation of forgetting.
The interference theory also only really explains forgetting when 2 sets of information are similar, for example when simultaneously learning French and Welsh at school.
This does not happen very often and so interference cannot explain forgetting in the majority of real-life settings.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is However, some research studies have considered the effects of interference in more everyday situations.
For example, Baddeley and Hitch (1977) wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time, so they asked rugby players to try to remember the names of the teams they had played so far in that season, week by week.
Because most of the players had missed games, for some, the ‘last team’ they played might have been two weeks ago, three weeks ago, or more.
The results very clearly showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place. Much more important was the number of games they played in the meantime, meaning that a player’s recall of a team from three weeks ago, for example, was better if they had played no matches since then.
This is further supported by Burke and Skrull (1988), who presented a series of magazine adverts to their participants, who had to recall the details of what they had seen, for example the brand names.
In some cases, the participants had more difficulty in remembering earlier adverts and in other cases, they had more difficulty in remembering the later ones.
The effect was greater when the adverts were similar (the adverts were for identical products by different brands), which is a phenomenon is known as competitive interference.
What does this show?

Answer 27

This shows that interference theory can apply to at least some everyday situations, showing that it has useful real world application and is a valid explanation for forgetting

Question 28

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer

Answer 28

One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory’

Question 29

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
What is a cue?

Answer 29

A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory

Question 30

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.

Answer 30

Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning

Question 31

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
Example

Answer 31

For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness)

Question 32

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).

Answer 32

With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room

Question 33

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
What is there also?

Answer 33

There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood

Question 34

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.

Answer 34

The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation

Question 35

Martin is studying for his modern language exams.
He revises French followed by Spanish on the same night and then gets confused between the two: for example, he remembers the French word for ‘chair’ instead of the Spanish word for ‘chair.’
Sometimes, his mum helps to test Martin’s vocabulary.
When he is unable to remember a word, his mum tells him the first letter, then he can often recall it correctly.

Discuss two explanations for forgetting (16 marks).
Refer to Martin’s experiences in your answer.
One explanation is interference theory.

Another explanation is retrieval failure, when material is stored in the LTM, but cannot be consciously recalled due to a lack of retrieval cues to ‘jog the memory.’
A cue is a ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory.
Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.
For example, cues may be external (the environmental context) or internal (your mood or degree of drunkenness).
With retrieval failure, there is a lack of external contextual cues, where the environment for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different room.
There is also a lack of internal contextual cues, where the physical state for learning and recall is different, for example being in a different mood.
The types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state and organisation.

What is the AO2 application?

Answer 35

The AO2 application is that French and Spanish are similar types of material, which makes interference more likely.

Recalling the French word for ‘chair’ is proactive interference.

Martin’s mum gives him cues (the first letter), which can then be used for him to access the material he has failed to retrieve