explanations for forgetting - interference

Question 1

what is inteference manily an explanation for forgetting in the..

Answer 1

long term memory

Question 2

2 types of interference

Answer 2

• proactive inteference
• retroactive inteference

Question 3

describe proactive inteference

Answer 3

• older memory affects a new one

Question 4

describe retroactive inteference

Answer 4

• newer memory affects an older memory

Question 5

who researched the effects of similarity on forgetting

Answer 5

McGeoch & McDonald (1931)

Question 6

describe their research on effects of similarity
- procedure
- findings
- conclusions

Answer 6

procedure:
- studied retroactive intefer nce by changing amount of similarity between 2 sets of materials—> ppt learned 10 word list until recall all (100% accuracy) & then learned new list
- 6 groups of ppts who learnt diff types of new lists eg. group 1 = synonyms, group 5 = 3-digit numbers, group 6 = no new list (control grp)
findings/conclusions:
- ppts asked to recall original list, synonyms produced worst recall
- shows inteference is strongest when memories similar

Question 7

explanation of the question effects of similarity

Answer 7

could be due to proactive inteference or retroactive inteference

Question 8

evaluation of explanations for forgetting - interference

Answer 8

+) real-world interference
P: evidence of inteference effecting in everyday situations
E: baddeley & hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams they’d played during a rugby season - number of intervening games varied due to missed matches from injury - players who played most had worst recall
T: shows interference can occur in some real-world situations = increases validity
-) COUNTERPOINT
P: it’s unusual
E: conditions necessary for inteference are rare as not in a lab setting so conditions can not be created
T: suggests most forgetting is better explained by other theories eg. retrieval failure due to lack of cues

-) interference & cues
P: inteference is temporary & overcome by using cues
E: tulving & psotka (1971) gave ppts lists of words organised into categories, 1 list at a time - recall avged 70% for 1st list but got progressively worse as ppts learned each new list - end = ppts given cued recall test & recall rose again to abt 70%
T: shows interference causes temporary loss to material still in LTM

+) support from drug studies
P: evidence of retrograde facilitation
E: coenen & luijtelaar (1997) gave ppts. a list of words & later asked them to recall list - assuming intervening experiences would act as interference. found that when a list of words was learned under influence of drug diazepam, recall 1 week later was poor (compared to placebo control grp.). when a list was learned prior to the drug, recall was better. the drug facilitated recall of material learned beforehand. wixted (2004) suggests the drug prevents new info reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories, so it cannot interfere retroactively with info already stored
T: shows forgetting can be due to interference

Question 9

(extra) validity issues

Answer 9

P/E: most studies supporting inteference theory are lab based, so researchers have more control over variables. control over confounding variables means studies show a clear link between interference & forgetting
BUT - these studies often use artificial materials & unrealistic procedures as in everyday life we often have to learn something & recall it much later (eg. revising)