5. explanations of forgetting: interference theory Flashcards
Any forgetting of LTMs is most likely because
we can’t get access to them even though they are available. Interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, and this is experienced as forgetting.
Some forgetting takes place because of interference.
This occurs when
two pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in forgetting of one or both, or in some distortion of memory.
Interference has been proposed mainly as an explanation for forgetting in long-term memory (LTM).
It is very likely that the two (or more) memories that are interfering with each other were stored at different times. So, psychologists recognise that there are two types of interference:
· Proactive interference occurs when an older memory interferes with a newer one.
· Retroactive interference happens when a newer memory interferes with an older one.
RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF SIMILARITY
In both PI and RI, the interference is worse when the memories (or learning) are similar, as discovered by McGeoch and McDonald.
PROCEDURE:
they studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials.
Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy. They then learned a new list.
There were six groups of participants who had to learn different types of new lists:
Group 1: synonyms - words with the same meanings as the originals.
Group 2: antonyms - words with the opposite meanings to the originals.
Group 3: words unrelated to the original ones.
Group 4: consonant syllables.
Group 5: three- digit numbers.
Group 6: no new list - these participants just rested (control condition).
RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF SIMILARITY
McGeoch and McDonald
Findings
conclusion
When the participants were asked to recall the original list of words, the most similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall.
This shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar
EXPLANATION OF THE EFFECTS OF SIMILARITY
The reason similarity affects recall may be for one of two reasons:
It could be due to PI-previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store. Or it could be due to RI - new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity.
AO3: strength of INTERFERENCE
research support - Baddeley & Hitch rugby players
One strength is that there is evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations.
Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during a rugby season. The players all played for the same time interval (over one season) but the number of intervening games varied because some players missed matches due to injury. Players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had the poorest recall.
This study shows that interference can operate in at least some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.
AO3: limitation of INTERFERENCE
counterpoint - there are better explanations
nterference may cause some forgetting in everyday situations, but it is unusual.
This is because the conditions necessary for interference to occur are relatively rare. This is very unlike lab studies, where the high degree of control means a researcher can create ideal conditions for interference. For instance, two memories (or sets of learning) have to be fairly similar in order to interfere with each other. This may happen occasionally in everyday life (e.g. if you were to revise similar subjects close in time), but not often.
This suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to a lack of cues.
AO3: limitation of INTERFERENCE
interference is temporary - can be overcome by using cues
One limitation is that interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues (hints or clues to help us remember something).
Tulving gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time (participants were not told what the categories were). Recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse as participants learned each additional list (interference).
At the end of the procedure the participants were given a cued recall test - they were told the names of the categories. Recall rose again to about 70%.
This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, a finding not predicted by interference theory.
