interference Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is proactive interference? Give an example:

A

Previously learnt information interferes with the new information you are trying to store.

Example: Calling your new math teacher by your old math teacher’s name

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is retroactive interference? Give an example:

A

A new memory interferes with previously stored/ older memories.

Example: getting a new bank card with a different pin, but when you want to use your old card, you’ve forgotten the pin.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What acronym can be used to remember interference theory?

A

P.O.R.N

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

In the acronym PORN what do the letters stand for?

A

P-Proactive
O-Old (interferes with new)
R-Retroactive
N-New (interferes with old)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How is interference usually studied?

A

-Interference is usually studied by two word lists being presented. -Participants learn the first word list to 100% accuracy, then memorize the second word list.
-To test pro-active interference, the second set is tested.
-To test for retro-active interference, the first set is tested.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Who studied the effect of similarity on memory?

A

McDonald and McGeoch (1931)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did McDonald and McGeoch(1931) study?

A

The effect of similarity on memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the procedure of McDonald and McGeoch’s (1931) study?

A

Participants were asked to learn a list of words to 100% accuracy then given a new list to learn. The new material varied in the degree to which it was similar to the old:
Group 1: synonyms - words had same meanings as the originals.

Group 2: antonyms - words had opposite meanings to the originals.

Group 3: unrelated - words unrelated to the original ones.

Group 4: consonant syllables.

Group 5: three-digit numbers.

Group 6: control with no new list - participants just rested

Participantswere then tested on the first list.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How many groups were there in the McGeoch and McDonald (1931) study?

A

6

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were the findings of McGeoch and McDonald’s (1931) study?

A

Performance depended on the nature of the second list. The most similar material produced the worst recall. This shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How can similarity effect recall through proactive interference?

A

previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How can similarity effect recall through retroactive interference?

A

New information overwrites previously similar memories due to the similarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the strengths of interference theory?

A
  • evidence of retrograde facilitation from research studies.
  • evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Explain the evidence of retrograde facilitation from research studies.

A

-Conen and Luijtelaar (1997) gave participants a list of words and later asked them to recall the list, assuming the intervening experiences would act as interference.
-When a list of words was learned under the influence of diazepam, recall one week later was poor (compared with a placebo control group).
-When a list was learned before the drug was taken, later recall was better than placebo.
-This means the drug facilitated the recall of material learned beforehand.
-Wixted (2004) suggests that the drug prevents new information from reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories, so it cannot interfere retroactively with stored information.
-This shows that forgetting can be due to interference.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Explain the evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations.

A

-Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they played against during the season.
-The players all played for one season but the number of intervening games varied because some players missed matches.
-Players who played the most games (allowing for most interference) had the poorest recall.
-This study shows that interference can operate in at least some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What did Conen and Luijtelaar (1997)’s research show?

A

-That forgetting can be due to interference.

17
Q

What did Baddeley and Hitch’s research show?

A

-That interference can operate in at least some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.

18
Q

Limitations of the interference theory?

A

-interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues.
-interference has little impact on everyday lives.

19
Q

Explain the idea that interference has little impact on everyday lives?

A

-This is because the conditions necessary for interference to occur are relatively rare. unlike lab studies, where the high degree of control means a researcher can create ideal conditions for interference.
-two memories have to be very similar in order to interfere with each other. This may happen occasionally in everyday life (e.g. if you were to revise similar subjects close in time), but not often.
-This suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to a lack of cues.

20
Q

Explain the idea that interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues.

A

-Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time (participants were not told what the categories were).
– Recall averaged approx. 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse as participants learned each additional list (proactive interference).
-At the end, participants were given a cued recall test and told the names of the categories causing recall to rise again to approx. 70%.
-This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material still in LTM, which was not predicted by interference theory.

21
Q

What study suggests that interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues?

A

-Tulving and Psotka (1971)