Intereference

Question 1

Proactive interference

Answer 1

When old information effects new information.

Question 2

Retroactive interference

Answer 2

When new information affects old information.

Question 3

Underwood and Postman- Proactive

Answer 3

• Reviews findings from other studies (meta-analysis).
• If participants remembered 10 or more lists, after 24 hours they remembered 20% of the new information. If they remembered one list recall was over 70%

Question 4

McGeoch and McDonald- Retroactive

Answer 4

Procedure
- Participants were given 10 words (List A) until they could recall them with accuracy. They were then given a second list (List B). There were 6 groups- synonyms, antonyms, words related to original list, nonsense syllables, 3 digit syllables or no new list.
Results
- If List B was like List A, recall was poor- 12%
- If List B was nonsense, there was less effect- 26%
- If List B was numbers (very dissimilar) this was least effective- 36%

Question 5

Baddeley and Hitch- Interference

Answer 5

Procedure
- They used rugby players who had played every match in a season and those 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.
Results
- Players who played the most games forgot more games than those who had played fewer games due to injury. This shows that incorrect recall wasn’t due to the passage of time.

Question 6

Evaluation support- Existence of retroactive

Answer 6

• One strength is research support for the existence of retroactive interference.
• Ev- McGeoch and McDonald- Gave participants a List A and List B that they had to recall. List A and B similar, recall of A was poor (12%). List B was numbers, recall of A was better (36%).
• Ex- Proves that new information was affecting the recall of old information- retroactive. Highly scientific- only change is the list given.
• However, lack of ecological. Possibly less likely to have retroactive interference as there is semantics to the information. Also could be retrieval delay issues due to the 10 minute break.

Question 7

Evaluation support- High ecological validity

Answer 7

• However, there is research support with high ecological validity.
• Ev- Participants who had played several rugby games were asked to remember as many of the teams they had played against they could. Forgetting was more due to the number of games played rather than the amount of time passed between games.
• Ex- Interference is the issue, and not retrieval delay in real life situation.
• On the other hand, this could be only true of retroactive interference.

Question 8

Evaluation support- Proactive

Answer 8

• Though there is research support for proactive interference.
• Ev- Meta-analysis of other studies on proactive interference. If 10 or more lists remembered, after 24 hours 20% recalled new information. If only 1 list, it was 70% recalled.
• Ex- Therefore, evidence of both retroactive and proactive interference, over many studies and within a real life setting.
• This has real life application for understanding how to improve memory recall and reduce forgetting.