Interference Theory Flashcards
What is Interference?
An explanation for forgetting, whereby one memory disrupts the ability to recall another- more likely to occur when memories are similar.
What is proactive interference?
Forgetting due to past learning interfering with current leaning- old in way of new
What is retroactive interference?
Forgetting due to new learning interfering with past leaning- new in way of old
What is the study which shows support for similar memories making interference more likely?
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
Describe McGeoch and McDonald (1931) study of similar memories making interference more likely
- Participents were split into 3 groups, each given a list if words to learn (list A). They then had a 10 minute resting interval during which they had to memorise a new list of words.
Group 1- given a list of synonyms to list A
Group 2- given a list of random words
Group 3- given a list of numbers
The recall of words from list A was the poorest in group 1- 12% correctly recalled compared to group 3- 37% correctly recalled
Who did the real-world study investigating interference effects in everyday life?
Baddeley and Hitch (1977)
Describe Baddeley and Hitch’s (1977) study on the real-world study investigating interference effects in everyday life?
A real-world study: Baddeley and Hitch (1977)- Investigated interference effects in an everyday setting of rugby players. They were asked to try to remember the names of the teams they had played so far in that season, week by week Not all players played in every match (some missed games due to injury), so for some the ‘last team’ they played might have been two weeks ago, or three weeks ago or more. If interference theory is correct those players who played more games should recall the least. Baddeley and Hitch found that what was more important on recall was not the amount of time that had passed since they had last played their match, but the number of games they played in the meantime. A player’s recall of a team from three week ago was better if they had played no matches since then. The more games a player played the more opponent teams they forgot as the matches had interfered with their memory.
What is the strength for interreference theory?
Real-world applications- There is evidence of interference effects in real life situations. When people are exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short period of time there is more likely to be interference and people will forget those adverts.
E.g. Danaher et al. (2008) both recall and recognition of an advertiser’s message were impaired when participants were exposed to two advertisements for competing brands within a week. In order to enhance the memory trace they should run multiple exposures on one day rather than spread these out over a week. This results in reduced interference from competitors’ advertisements.
Interference research can help advertisers maximise the effectiveness of their campaigns and target their spending most effectively.
What are the three limitations of interference theory?
Does not take into account individual differences- There is evidence that some people are less affected by proactive interference than others. Kane and Engle (2000) - individuals with a greater working memory span= less likely to experience proactive interference. Participants were given three word lists to learn and those with low working memory spans showed greater proactive interference when recalling the second and third lists than did participants with higher spans.
This highlights the role that individual differences play in how people are affected by interference.
Artificial Research- Most of the research which provides support for interference have been carried out in labs using artificial materials, such as word lists and/or nonsense syllables the findings may not relate to everyday uses of memory as they are not reflecting real-life situations.
Counter- Interference effects have been observed in more realistic, everyday situations (Baddeley and Hitch, 1977).
Interference and cues- Interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues. Tulving and Psotka (1971)gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time. Recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse as participants learned each additional list= proactive interference. However, at the end of the procedure participants were given a cued recall test- they were told the names of the categories. Recall rose again to about 70%. This suggests that the words were in the long-term memory just not available.
Interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM a finding not predicted by interference theory.
