Forgetting - interference theory Flashcards
What is forgetting?
The failure to retrieve memories.
What is interference theory?
Forgetting is due to information in the LTM becoming confused with or disrupted by other information during coding.
Only for similar pieces of information.
This confusion/disruption leads to inaccurate recall.
Retroactive and proactive.
What is proactive interference?
Previously learned information interferes with more recent learning.
What is retroactive interference?
Recent learning interferes with information we have previously learned.
Schmidt et al (2000) procedure
Schmidt et al (2000) - The Netherlands
Aim: assess the influence of retroactive interference upon memory of street names learned during childhood.
700 participants randomly selected from data base of 1700 students at a Dutch school, all were sent a questionnaire.
211 responded (ages 11-79), given a map of the area with the 48 street names replaced by numbers. Asked to remember as many as possible.
Relevant details were collected, including how many times the participant had moved house, where they lived etc.
Retroactive interference was assessed by the number of times individuals had moved to other neighbourhoods or cities (thus learning new street names).
Schmidt et al (2000) extraneous variables
How long they’ve been away from the area.
How long they attended the school for.
Learning street numbers around the place of work/number of new jobs.
Sampling method: volunteer, questionnaire - certain type of person to volunteer.
Unrepresentative sample - broad age range, under represented.
Language spoken
Where they lived when at school: near or far.
Age - cognitive decline.
Learning differences.
Mode of transport into school.
Schmidt et al (2000) conclusions
Learning new patterns of street names when moving house makes recalling older patterns of street names harder.
Retroactive does seem to be able to explain pattern of forgetting in some real-life situations.
Baddeley and Hitch (1977)
Asked rugby players to remember as many teams as possible they had played.
Interference tested by assessing how recall was affected by number of games played.
Forgetting was due to number of games that had been played rather than the amount of time passed.
Supports interference as the more games played the more interference explained.
AO3: only explains forgetting when two sets of information are similar.
Cannot be applied to everyday real-life forgetting.
Often we just forget things, even though there was nothing interfering e.g. forgetting homework for school.
Theory has low external validity.
AO3: most support for interference is lab based.
Replicated easily - produce the same results - reliable.
High control of variables - no extraneous variables - results are valid.
Theory has high internal validity.
However, low ecological validity as it does not reflect the real world.
AO3: real-life application
Advertisement - would make adverts different from previous adverts - can make sure branding isn’t too similar.
Make sure people remember their product rather than confusing it with another one.
Prevent competitive interference.
Beneficial/useful to companies.
AO3: real- life studies
Baddeley and Hitch - rugby players.
Study shows that interference can apply to some everyday situations.
Supporting evidence gives the theory higher external validity.
Conducted on a real-life situation - high ecological validity.
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
Interference is worse when the memories are similar.
Procedure:
Given a list of 10 words to remember and had to remember until they had 100% accuracy.
Then had to learn a new list of words but participants were split into 6 groups and each had to learn a different list.
Group 1: Synonyms
Group 2: Antonyms
Group 3: Words unrelated to the original ones
Group 4: Consonant syllables
Group 5: Three-digit numbers
Group 6: No new list was learnt
Findings:
For the original list of words, performance was worst on the most similar material (synonyms). It shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
