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

newer memory affected by an older one

Question 4

describe retroactive inteference

Answer 4

older memory affected by a newer one

Question 5

who researched the effects of similarity on forgetting

Answer 5

McGeoch & McDonald (1931)

Question 6

describe McGeoch & McDonalds (1931) research on effects of similarity
- procedure
- findings
- conclusions

Answer 6

procedure:
- studied retroactive interference by changing amount of similarity between 2 sets of material
- ppt learned 10 word list until able to recall all (100% accuracy) & then learnt new list
- 6 groups of participants who learnt different types of new lists
- eg. group 1 = synonyms, group 5 = 3-digit numbers, group 6 = no new list (control group)

findings/conclusions:
- ppts asked to recall original list, synonyms produced worst recall
- shows interference 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

AO3 +) support for real-world interference
-) it’s unusual

Answer 8

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
- found players who played most had worst recall

T: shows interference can occur in some real-world situations which increases validity

HOWEVER: this is unusual as conditions necessary for interference 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

Question 9

AO3 -) interference is temporary & can be overcome using cues

Answer 9

E:
- tulving & psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words organised into categories, 1 list at a time
- recall averaged 70% for 1st list but got progressively worse as participants learned each new list
- at the end, participants given cued recall test & recall rose again to
~70%

T: shows interference causes temporary loss to material still in LTM

Question 10

AO3 +) evidence for retrograde facilitation

Answer 10

E:
- coenen & luijtelaar (1997) gave participants a list of words & later asked them to recall list
- assumed 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 group)
- 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