Interference Theory

Question 1

Research support that retroactive interference is an explanation for forgetting

Answer 1

E - McGeoh + McDonald had participants learn + recall a list of words. Prior to recall, they either did nothing (control condition) or learnt a 2nd list. Found recall was best for the control condition but became poor when 2nd list = similar to 1st

E - Provides research support for

L - Therefore study provides support for retroactive interference as an explanation for forgetting

Question 2

Limitation w/ interference theory = it’s supporting research lacks ecological validity

Answer 2

E - E.g McGeoh and McDonald’s research on interference tests participants on random lists of word in a lab settings

E - In real life, people don’t learn artificially generated lists. They learn information w/ meaning (events+names). Testing recall on lists of words in controlled settings may help to control variables but does mean researcher becomes highly artificial, =ing difficulty generalising from the conclusions of interference research to everyday settings where real life forgetting occurs.

L - Therefore there is an issue with ecological validity of the supporting research as it undermines the interference theory as an explanation for forgetting

Question 3

Limitation of interference theory = can only explain some situations of forgetting

Answer 3

E - Issue appears to be that while interference effects do occur in everyday life, they tend to require special conditions (learning material that is very similar to other information).

E - suggests that interference theory may only be a valid explanation of some very specific types of forgetting. Given that people forget things that are not similar to other information they have already learnt, interference theory may offer a limited explanation for forgetting. This doesn’t mean theory = wrong but does mean that for a full account of why people forget we do need to consider other theories such as retrieval failure

L - Therefore interference theory offers a limited explanation of forgetting

Question 4

Research support for retroactive interference as an explanation for forgetting

Answer 4

E - Schmidt (2000) found a negative association between the number of street names a person could remember from the area they grew up in & number of times they had subsequently moved

E - Findings can be explained by retroactive interference: the move someone moves the more street names they learn which interferes w/ memory of the original street name =ing interference theory as the study findings are consistent with the theory’s predictions. Moreover study’s support for forgetting = strengthened by its strong ecological validity as the information being recalled (street names) and causing interference (no. of moves) was naturalistic =ing its findings on the effect of retroactive interference is more generalisable to real world situations of forgetting