Explanations For Forgetting: Interference Flashcards
What is interference
An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another. This is most likely to occur if the two memories have some similarity
What are the two types of interference
Retroactive interference and proactive interference
What is proactive interference
Past learning interferes with current attempt to learn something
what is retroactive interference
Current attempts to learn something interferes with past learning
Who studied retroactive interference
Müller and Pilzecker (1900)
How did muller and pilzecker identify retroactive interference
They gave ppts a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins and then, after a retention interval, asked ppts to recall the lists.
Performance was less good if ppts had been given an intervening task between learning and recall.
The intervening task was describing paintings
Why does an intervening task produce retroactive interference
Because the later task interferes with what had previously been learnt
Who studied proactive interference
Underwood (1957)
How did underwood identify proactive interference
He analysed the findings from a number of studies and concluded that when ppts have to learn a series of word lists they do not learn the lists of words encountered later on as well as the words encountered earlier on.
If ppts memorised 10 or more lists:
After 24 hrs, they remembered 20% of what they learned
If ppts memorised 1 list:
They remembered 70% of what they learned
Evaluation for interference
- Baddeley and hitch
- It only explains a specific type of forgetting
- Lack ecological validity
Evaluation: Baddeley and hitch
There is research support for interference theory. Baddeley and Hitch (1977) examined rugby union players who had played every match in the season and players who had missed some games due to injury. The players were asked to recall the names of the teams they had played against earlier in the season. Baddeley and Hitch found that players who had played the most games forgot proportionately more games than those who had played fewer games due to injury. These results support the idea of retroactive inference, as the learning of new information (new team names) interfered with the memory of old information (earlier team names).
Evaluation: it only explains a specific type of forgetting
Although interference research (proactive and retroactive) provides an insight into one type of forgetting, it only explains a specific type of forgetting – memory for similar information. For example, the results of Baddeley and Hitch demonstrate retroactive interference in rugby union players trying to recall team names from earlier that season. While this example highlights interference effects of very similar information, the research is somewhat limited as it fails to explain forgetting in other situations when information is not similar.
Evaluation: lacks ecological validity
Furthermore, interference research is often criticised for being artificial and lacking ecological validity. Most of the research examining interference is carried out in a laboratory. For example, Keppel and Underwood found that participants typically remembered the three-letter trigrams that were presented first in a sequence, irrespective of how long the interval was between presentation and recall. Many psychologists argue that these findings lack ecological validity do not represent everyday examples of interference (or forgetting) and are limited in their application to everyday human memory
