Interference (forgetting) -A03

Question 1

Evidence from lab settings - strength

Answer 1

• Interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology.
• Literally thousands of lab experiments have been carried out into this explanation for forgetting,
• Most of these studies show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM.
• This is a strength because lab experiments control the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.

Question 2

Limitation - artificial material

Answer 2

• There is a much greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the lab than in real-life situations
• The stimulus materials used in most studies are lists of words. The task facing participants is to learn these lists. Learning lists of actual words is definitely more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables (such as TZK). But this is still quite some distance from the things we learn and try to remember in everyday life - people’s faces, their birthdays, the ingredients of our favourite pizza, details of psychological research studies, that kind of thing.
• This is a limitation because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the lab. Interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is the lab.

Question 3

Strength - real life studies - Alan baddeley + graham hitch

Answer 3

• wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time.
• 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 might have been two weeks ago, or three weeks ago, or more.
• The results very clearly showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place. Much more important was the number of games they played in the meantime.
• So a player’s recall of a team from three weeks ago was better if they had played no matches since then.
• This study shows that interference explanations can apply to at least some everyday situations.