Explanations for forgetting: Interference Flashcards
What are the two explanations for forgetting?
Interference theory and cue dependent forgetting.
What is interference theory?
When two pieces of information conflict with each other resulting in the forgetting of one or both. It mainly explains forgetting in the LTM.
What are the two different types of interference?
Proactive interference and retroactive interference
What is proactive interference?
This occurs when information stored previously interferes with an attempt to recall something new. In other words past memories affect the storing of new memories.
What is retroactive interference?
This occurs when coding new information disrupts information stored previously. In other words storing new memories affects past memories that are stored.
What are the assumptions for forgetting in the LTM?
- Assumes that memory can be disrupted or interfered with what we have previously learned or by what we’ll learn in the future.
- Theories of forgetting in LTM are a mixture of lack of accessibility and availability.
Is interference a form of long-term memory forgetting or short term memory forgetting?
Long-term memory forgetting.
Give another example of other similar memories/skills that may cause interference
Learning two musical instruments that are similar.
What was Benton Underwood’s study?
Examined the effect of proactive interference on long-term memory, in an experiment that resembles Peterson and Peterson (1959). Participants were presented with meaningless three-letter consonant trigrams (for example, THG) at different intervals (3, 6, 9 second, etc). To prevent rehearsal the participants had to count backwards in threes before recalling. Keppel and Underwood found that participants typically remembered the trigrams that were presented first, irrespective of the interval length. They concluded that the results suggest proactive interference occurred, as memory for the earlier consonants, which had transferred to long-term memory, was interfering with the memory for new consonants, due to the similarity of the information presented.
What was McGeoch and McDonald’s study?
Studied the effects of similarity of material. (retroactive) They gave participants a list of 10 adjectives (list A). There was then a resting interval of 10 minutes during which they learnt list B, followed by recall of list A. If list B was a list of synonyms of list A then recall was poor (12%). If list B was nonsense syllables then it had less of an effect on recall (26% recall). If list B consisted of numbers then this had the least affect (37% recall).
What was Baddeley and Hitch’s study?
Investigated interference effects in an every day setting of rugby. Participants who had played a number of rugby union games where asked to remember as many teams they had played against. It was found that forgetting was more due to the number of games played than the time passed between games. Retroactive as new team names interfered with old team names.
A03: Interference theory
+ Real-world application to advertising
+ Research support
- Artificial research
- Individual differences
A03: Real-world application to advertising
There is a considerable body of research on the effects of interference when people are exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short time period. For example, Danaher et al (2008) found that both recall and recognition of an advertiser’s message were impaired when participants were exposed to advertisements for competing brands within a week. They suggest that one strategy might be able to enhance memory trace by running multiple exposures to an advertisement in one day rather than spreading these out over a week. This results in reduced interference from competitors’ advertisements. This shows how interference research can help advertisers maximise the effectiveness of their campaigns and target their spending most effectively.
A03: Research support
Support for the interference theory comes from Underwood and Postman who demonstrated retroactive interference. For example participants were divided into two groups. Group A was asked to learn a list of word pairs i.e. cat-tree, they were then asked to learn a second list of word pairs where the second paired word was different i.e. cat glass. Group B was asked to learn the first list of word pairs only. Both groups were asked to recall the first list of word pairs. Underwood and Postman found that Group B’s recall of the first list was more accurate than the recall of group A. This is a strength because the research suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with participants’ ability to recall the list and therefore supports the existence of retroactive interference.
A03: Artificial research
One issue with the evidence offered in support of both pro-and retroactive interference concerns the methodology of the studies. Most of this research is often used a rather artificial list of words and/or nonsense syllables. Thus, the findings may not relate to everyday uses of memory, which tend to not involve word lists. In addition, participants may lack the motivation to remember the links in such studies, and this may allow interference effects to appear stronger than they really are. This means that the research is low in ecological validity, although the counterargument is that interference effects have been observed in everyday situations.
