explanations for forgetting: intereference Flashcards
what is interference?
when two pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in forgetting of one or both, or some distortion of memory
how does inteference affect memory?
interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, which is experienced as ‘forgetting’
what type of memory has interference been proposed as an explanation for and why?
- LTM
- once info has reached LTM it is more-or-less permanent
- therefore, any forgetting of LTMs is most likely because we can’t get access to them even though they are available
what are the two types of interference?
- proactive interference
- retroactive interference
what is proactive interference?
when an older memory interferes with a new one
eg. when a teacher has learned so many names in the past she has difficulty remembering the names of her current class
what is retroactive interference?
when a newer memory interferes with an older one
eg. when a teacher has learned so many names this year she has difficulty remembering the names of the students last year
research on effects of similarity: procedure (mcgeoch and mcdonald 1931)
- studied RI by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials
- ps had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy
- they then learned a new list
what were the 6 groups of participants who had to learn different types of new lists researched by mcgeoch and mcdonald (1931)?
- group 1: synonyms
- group 2: antonyms
- 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: findings and conclusions (mcgeoch and mcdonald 1931)
- when ps were asked to recall the original list of words, the most similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall
- 1.2 items recalled on average for synonyms vs. 4.5 for no interfering material
- this shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar
how would similarity affect recall due to PI / RI?
- due to PI: previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store
- due to RI: new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity
evaluation: evidence of interference effects in more everday situations (baddeley and hitch 1977)
- 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 becomes 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
evaluation: interference 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
- two memories have to be fairly similar in order to interfere with each other. this may happen occasionally in everyday life, but not often
- this suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure
evaluation: research support (burke and skrull 1988)
- presented a series of magazine adverts to their ps, who had to recall details of what they saw (eg. brand names)
- sometimes it was more difficult to recall earlier events (RI)
- other times, later events were more difficult (PI)
- the effect was greater when the adverts were similar (ie. adverts for identical products from different brands)
evaluation: interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues (tulving and psotka 1971)
- gave ps lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time, but they were not told what they categories were
- recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse as ps learned each additional list (PI)
- at the end of the procedure, the ps 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 which is not predicted by interference theory
evaluation: support from drug studies (coenen and van luijtelaar 1997)
- gave ps a list of words and asked them to recall it later, assuming intervening experiences would act as interference
- found that when a list of words was learned under the influence of the drug diazepam, recall one week later was poor compared to a placebo control goup
- when a list was learned before the drug was taken, later recall was better than placebo
- therefore, the drug improved recall of material learned beforehand
