explanations for forgetting : interference theory Flashcards
proactive interference
earlier information that has been stored in the LTM prevents access to later information
retroactive interference
later information prevents access to earlier information
how is the interference theory researched
get participants to learn two lists of word pairs where the first word of each pair is the same in both lists
After the first lists have been memorised participants are given the first word of pair and asked to recall which word goes with it
When proactive interference occurs, participants recall the first word pair list
Retroactive interference occurs, they recall the second list of pairs
what is the similarity effect
When the information is similar, the effect of interference is worse
New information overwrite similar memories because of the similarity
Old information makes new similar information more difficult to remember
how is the similarity effect researched
Aim : to investigate memory when information is similar
Procedure : participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy, they then learnt a new list. Six groups of participants
Group 1 – synonyms (words with the same meaning as the original)
Group 2 – antonyms (words with the opposite meaning as the originals)
Group 3 – words unrelated to the original ones
Group 4 – consonant syllables
Group 5 – three-digit number
Group 6 – no new list, control condition, participants just rested
Findings : the more similar the lists are the worst the recall is
conclusions : interference is strongest with memories that are similar as previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store or new information overwrites previous similar memories because of similarity
strength of interference theory
baddeley and hitch 1977 supports the concept of interference reducing retrieval in real life
They aimed to see if interference was a better explanation than the passage of time for forgetting
Had rugby players who played in every single match and some who missed some games due to an injury recall the names of the teams that they had played against in the past season
Found that players who had more games forgot proportionately than those who played less games due to an injury
Supports the idea of retroactive interference as the learning of new information interfered with the recalling of old information (old teams)
Good evidence –> field experiment, researcher used real-life situation and they are not manipulating any independent variables, so the results has a high ecological validity, can be used to predict other players memories
-
support for retro + proactive interference
schmidt et al 2000 aimed to access the influence of retroactive interference upon the memory of street names learned during childhood
Found that there is a positive association between the number of times (211)participants had moved house outside the Molenberg neighbourhood and the number of street names forgotten
This supports retroactive interference as learning new patterns of street names when moving houses makes recalling an older pattern of street names harder to do
Interference theory is valid
Significant strength of interference theory because it means that it is a valid explanation for forgetting and could use this to make predictions about forgetting in future behaviour
weakness of interference theory
interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues(hints or clues to help us remember something)
Tulving and psotka (1971) gave participants a list of words organised into categories, one list at a time
They found out that recall averaged about 70 % for the first list but became progressively worse as participants learnt each additional list, they gave the participants a cued recall test (telling them the name of the categories), recall rose to 70%
This shows that interference causes temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, a finding not predicted by interference theory
It tells us that interference may not be a valid explanation for forgetting.
Interference theory explains why the participants’ performance became worse as they learnt more lists of words. if interference theory is correct, the words should disappear from memory altogether and no longer be available to recall.
even if the participants are given a cued-recall test, they should perform poorly because the words are no longer stored in LTM which suggests problems with validity.
This is a significant issue as it is not what Tulving and Psotka found. The fact that recall returned to high levels clearly shows that the words were still stored in LTM and had not disappeared. They were available, but were not accessible.
This issue matters because finding is difficult for the interference theory to explain reducing its theoretical usefulness.
