Forgetting: Interference Flashcards
What are the 2 types of interference?
1) Proactive Interference - past memories interfere with your ability to form new memories.
2) Retroactive Interference - recent memories interfere with old memories.
What is the Interference Theory?
The idea that when 2 pieces of information conflict with each other, it causes 1 or both pieces of information to be forgotten.
Information from your LTM is permanent so forgetting is probably due to a lack of access to these memories despite them being available.
Interference only makes them harder to access.
Interference is worse when both pieces of information is similar - McGeoch and McDonald (1931) - Effects of similarity - Aim
Investigate how different types of interference can affect memory recall.
Interference is worse when both pieces of information is similar - McGeoch and McDonald (1931) - Effects of similarity - Procedure
- Participants had to successfully learn a set of 10 words with 100% accuracy.
- They were then put into one of the following conditions: synonyms, antonyms, words unrelated to the original, nonsense syllables, three digit numbers or rested.
Interference is worse when both pieces of information is similar - McGeoch and McDonald (1931) - Effects of similarity - Findings
When asked to recall the original list, performance depended on the nature of the 2nd task.
Interference is worse when both pieces of information is similar - McGeoch and McDonald (1931) - Effects of similarity - Conclusion
Interference is strongest when tasks are similar.
Interference - Strength
(Refer to McGeoch and McDonald - Effects of similarity)
Interference - Strength
point: there is research support for interference as an explanation for forgetting.
evidence: Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch (1977) wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation of forgetting than the passage of time. So, they asked rugby players to try to remember the names of the teams they had played so far in that season, week by week. Because most of the players had missed games, for some, the last team they played may have been 2 or 3 weeks prior. The results clearly showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place but the number of games they played in the meantime. This suggests that a player’s recall of a team from 3 weeks ago was better if they had played no matches since then.
justification: This suggests that a player’s recall of a team from 3 weeks ago was better if they had played no matches since then.
implication: therefore this is a strength of this explanation of forgetting as it applies this theory to a real-life context hence increasing its ecological validity.
Interference - Strength
point: there is research showing that interference effects may be overcome using cues.
evidence: Endel Tulving and Joseph Psotka (1971) gave participants 5 lists of 24 words, each list organised into 6 categories of which the participants were asked to memorise. The categories weren’t explicit but it was presumed that they would be obvious to the participants. Recall was about 70% accurate for the first word but this fell as participants were given each additional list to learn, presumably due to interference. However, at the end, they were given a cued recall test. They were told the names of the categories as a clue and recall rose to about 70%.
justification: this suggests that interference is one of the causes of forgetting but also shows how it can be overcome through using cues.
implication: this research support increases the validity of this explanation of forgetting.
Interference - Weakness
point: research into interference as an explanation for forgetting has been criticised as it uses artificial materials.
evidence: there is a significantly greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the lab than in real-life situations as stimuli used in studies are often lists of words whereby the participants are tasked with remembering these lists. Learning lists of words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables such as TZK, but this is still quite some distance away from the things we learn and try to remember in everyday life, such as people’s faces and birthdays.
justification: this suggests that the idea of interference as an explanation for forgetting is something more likely to be witnessed in a controlled lab environment as it is more likely to occur due to the artificial stimuli presented.
implication: as a result, this is a weakness of this explanation of forgetting as it is not applicable to real-life, hence reducing its ecological validity.
