interference theory Flashcards
introduction
Interference is an explanation for forgetting. It occurs when two pieces of information disrupt one another.
Results in forgetting of one or both or distortion of memory.
• Forgetting in LTM
• Memories are fairly permanent.
• Interference → memories can’t be accessed / located.
proactive interference
old memories disrupt new memories
retroactive interference
new memories disrupt old memories
effect of similarity
Interference is worse when the information being recalled is similar.
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
Mcgeoch and Mcdonald
Studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of material.
Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy.
They then had to learn 1 of 6 new sets of words.
Interference appears to be strongest when the material is most similar
strength-real world interference
Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during the rugby season.
It was found that players who played the most games had the poorest recall.
counterpoint to real world interference
In lab studies it is possible to create the conditions needed to cause interference because the researcher is able to manipulate and control variables.
→ We can produce interference in a lab and it may be able to explain some forgetting in the real world, but it may not always be reliable explanation and forgetting may be better explained by other theories.
interference and cues-limitation
Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants multiple lists of words to learn.
• Split into categories.
• Recall ~ 70% for the first list but became progressively worse as additional lists were learned.
However when they were told the categories, recall rose to around 70% again.
Peel research support
One strength of interference theory is evidence for its effect in more everyday situations.
Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played agains during a rugby season. The players all played for the same time interval (over one season) but the number of intervening games varied because some players missed matches due to injury. They found that players who played the most games had the poorest recall
This study shows that interference can operate in at least some real world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.
peel counterpoint
However despite this, critics have argued that interference in the real world may be quite rare, because the conditions needed to produce interference are quite rare, whereas in a lab this is not the case.
For example, in the real world we only rarely learn two very similar pieces of information within a short time frame and then have to recall them, Whereas in a lab learning an recall are controlled and happen quite quickly. Also in the real world there are variables that impact us and our learning, which can be controlled in a lab.
Therefore a lab can produce the conditions need for interference to occur in a way they may rarely do in the real world. Which means that whilst we can produce interference in a lab, it may not always be a reliable explanation in the real world and forgetting may be better explained by theories such as retrieval failure.
peel interference and cues
One limitation is that 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 (the categories were kept a secret). Recall averaged at around 70% for the first list but became progressively worse as additional lists were learned (PI).
However, at the end of the experiment the participants were given a cued test in which they were told the categories, which resulting in the recall rising to around 70% again.
This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of access to material that is still in LTM, rather than causing forgetting, as the theory suggests.
