explanations for forgetting: intereference Flashcards
1
Q
what is interference?
A
- when two pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in forgetting of one or both, or some distortion of memory
- interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, which is experienced as ‘forgetting’
2
Q
what type of memory has interference been proposed as an explanation for?
A
- LTM
- once information 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
3
Q
what are the two types of interference?
A
- proactive interference
- retroactive interference
4
Q
what is proactive interference?
A
- 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
5
Q
what is retroactive interference?
A
- 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
6
Q
research on effects of similarity: procedure
A
- mcgeoch and mcdonald (1931) studied RI 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
7
Q
what were the 6 groups of participants who had to learn different types of new lists researched by mcgeoch and mcdonald (1931)?
A
- 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)
8
Q
research on effects of similarity: findings and conclusions
A
- when participants 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
9
Q
why could similarity affect recall?
A
- 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
10
Q
- 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
A
- 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
11
Q
evaluation: interference may cause some forgetting in everyday situations but it is unusual
A
- 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
12
Q
evaluation: research support (burke and skrull 1988)
A
- they presented a series of magazine adverts to their participants, who had to recall the details of what they had seen (eg. brand names)
- in some cases they had more difficulty recalling earlier events (RI)
- in other cases, they had problems remembering the later ones (PI)
- the effect was greater when the adverts were similar (ie. adverts for identical products from different brands)
13
Q
evaluation: interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues
A
- tulving and psotka (1971) gave participants 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 participants learned each additional list (PI)
- 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 which is not predicted by interference theory
14
Q
evaluation: support from drug studies
A
- coenen and van luijtelaar (1997) gave participants a list of words and asked them to recall it later, assuming intervening experiences would act as interference
- they 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
- but 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
- wixted (2004) suggests that the drug prevents new information reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories, so it cannot interfere retroactively with information already stores
- this finding shows that forgetting can be due to interference: reduce the interference and you reduce the forgetting
15
Q
evaluation: validity issues
A
- studies supporting interference theory are lab-based so use artificial materials and unrealistic procedures
- for example, in every life, we often learn something and recall it much later, rather than immediately
- however, interference is still likely to be a valid explanation for forgetting due to the large body of supporting evidence
