Interference as an explanation for forgetting

Question 1

what is the interference theory of forgeting

Answer 1

• An explanation of forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another.
• Most likely when two memories have a similarity.
• The Multistore model of memory states that LTM has an unlimited capacity, and memories have a duration of potentially a lifetime. However, we know by experience that we forget information stored in the LTM.
• But does that mean the memories are gone (availability), or we just can’t reach them (accessibility) ?

Question 2

what is proactive interference

Answer 2

• occurs when an older memory interferes with a new one

Question 3

what is retroactive interference

Answer 3

occurs when a newer memory interferes with an older one

Question 4

who studied proactive interference

Answer 4

Underwood

Question 5

what was Underwood’s method

Answer 5

Analysed findings of other studies

Question 6

what were Underwood’s findings

Answer 6

• Ppts remembered 10 or more lists, after 24 hours, they remembered 20% of what was learnt.
• If they learnt only one list, recall was 70%

Question 7

what was Underwood’s conclusion

Answer 7

When ppts have to learnt a series of word lists they do not learn the words later on as well

Question 8

who studied retroactive interference

Answer 8

• Muller
• McGeoch and McDonald

Question 9

what was Muller’s method

Answer 9

• Gave ppts nonsense syllables to learn for 6 minutes.
• After a retention interval asked ppts to recall the list

Question 10

what were Muller’s findings

Answer 10

Performance was less good if ppts had been given intervening task between initial learning and recall (they were should 3 landscape paintings and asked to describe them)

Question 11

what was Muller’s conclusion

Answer 11

The intervening task produced retroactive interference because the later task (describing pictures) interfered with what had previously been learnt

Question 12

what was McGeoch and McDonald’s method

Answer 12

• They studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials.
• Participants had to learn a list of words until they could remember them 100% accurately.
• They then learned a new list.
• There were six groups of participants who had to learn different types of lists:
• Group 1 – Synonyms – words with the same meanings of the originals.
• Group 2 – Antonyms – words with the opposite meanings of the originals.
• Group 3 – Words unrelated to the original ones.
• Group 4 – Nonsense Syllables.
• Group 5 – three-digit numbers.
• Group 6 – No new list – these participants just rested.

Question 13

what were the findings of McGeoch + McDonald’s method

Answer 13

• When the ppts then recalled the original list of words, their performance depended on the nature of the second list.
• The most similar material (synonyms) had the worst recall.
• Interference is then strongest when the memories are similar

Question 14

what are the affects of similarity on proactive + retroactive interference

Answer 14

the interference is worse/strongest when the memories (or learning) are similar.

Question 15

what are the positive AO3 points

Answer 15

• Evaluation of Interference Theory
• Real Life Studies to Support
• Real-world application to advertising

Question 16

expand on the +ve AO3 point Evaluation of Interference Theory

Answer 16

• Interference memory has been consistently supported in lab experiments, in fact, the results are probably the most consistently demonstrated in the whole of psychology.
• proactive and retroactive interference are reliable and robust effects,

Question 17

expand on the +ve AO3 point Real Life Studies to Support

Answer 17

• As was the case with decay and displacement in STM, it is very difficult to establish whether forgetting is due to the passage of time or interference.
• Baddeley & Hitch (1977) wanted to compare the two explanations of forgetting (decay and interference).
• They asked rugby players to recall the names of teams played earlier in the season.
• Injuries and suspensions meant that most players they interviewed had missed some games throughout the season, so for one player the last game might have been last week, while for another it was 3 weeks ago.
  Findings:
• They were able to show that the probability of correct recall was not dependent on the passage of time, as alternative theories would predict, but on the number of intervening games – interference.
• Recall for the last games was equally good whether that game was played some time ago or last week.
• Rugby players get paid to get hit in the head, gum shield monitors head collisions - to monitor concussion

Question 18

expand on the +ve AO3 point Real-world application to advertising

Answer 18

• There is a considerable body of research on the effects of interference when people are exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short time period.
• Danaher et al. (2008) found that both recall and recognition of an advertiser’s message were impaired when participants were exposed to two advertisements for competing brands within a week.
• This is a serious problem considering the amount of money that advertisers spend only to have the effect of their advertisement diluted by interference.
• Danaher et al. suggest that one strategy might be to enhance the memory trace by running multiple exposures to an advertisement on one day rather than spread these out over a week.
• This results in reduced interference from competitors’ advertisements.

Question 19

what are the -ve AO3 points

Answer 19

• Interference theory tells us little about the cognitive processes involved in forgetting. As with many cognitive theories – it describes but does not explain how or why it occurs.
• Difficult to distinguish between the effects of interference and other theories, such as decay. Is it interference that causes forgetting? Or the time interval between learning and recalling?
• lab studies do attempt to avoid this problem by conducting experiments quickly (usually within the hour), so TIME is not a confounding variable….but again, this is not how people learn (and forget) information in real life!