Interference Theory Flashcards
Research support that retroactive interference is an explanation for forgetting
(McGeoch + McDonald)
McGeoch and McDonald had participants learn and recall a list of words. Prior to recall, they either did nothing (control condition) or learnt a second list. They found recall was best for the control condition but became increasingly poor when the second list was made more similar to the first (e.g., participants given a second list of synonyms did worse than those given a second list with numbers).
E – This provides research support for interference theory – specifically the role of retroactive interference - as an explanation for forgetting. This is because the results are consistent with the predictions we can make from interference theory: participants recalled best when there was no second list learned, and therefore no obvious interference; whilst learning a second list of any kind generated new information that retroactively interfered with the recall of the older memory. Moreover, just as interference theory predicts, interference is greater when information is more similar, and this explains the finding that recall was worst when information in the two lists was most similar. However, this study does not provide support for proactive interference, as the researchers only tested the effect of the new list on the old.
L - Therefore study provides support for retroactive interference as an explanation for forgetting
Limitation w/ interference theory = it’s supporting research lacks ecological validity
E - For example, McGeoch and McDonald’s research on interference tests participants on random lists of word in a laboratory setting.
E - In real life, people don’t learn such artificially generated lists. They learn information with meaning, such as names and events. Testing recall on lists of words in controlled settings may help to control variables but it does mean that the research becomes highly artificial. This means it can be difficult generalising from the conclusions of interference research to everyday settings where real life forgetting occurs. Baddeley identified another issue with ecological validity of interference theory research. He said that the tasks given to participants are too close together in time. In real life, the information we learn and recall or forget is usually more spaced out. This again means generalising from interference theory research to real world situations of forgetting is difficult.
L - These issues with the ecological validity of the supporting research undermine interference theory as an explanation for forgetting.
Limitation of interference theory = can only explain some situations of forgetting
The issue appears to be that while interference effects do occur in everyday life, they tend to require special conditions i.e., when people learn material that is very similar to other information.
E – This 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 interference theory is wrong, but it does mean that for a full account of why people forget we do need to consider other theories, such as retrieval failure. For this reason, other theories for forgetting, such as retrieval failure*, are required for a full account of the reasons why people forget.
L – Therefore, interference theory offers a limited explanation of forgetting.
Research support for retroactive interference as an explanation for forgetting
Schmidt (2000) found a negative association between the number of street names a person could remember from the area they grew up in and the number of times they had subsequently moved.
E – These findings can be explained by retroactive interference: the more someone moves, the more street names they learn which interferes with the memory of the original street names. Therefore, this study supports interference theory as its findings are consistent with the theory’s predictions. Moreover, this study’s support for interference theory’s explanation for forgetting is strengthened by its strong ecological validity. Because the information being recalled (street names) and causing interference (number of moves) was naturalistic, this means its findings on the effect of retroactive interference is more generalisable to real world situations of forgetting. However, the lack of control in this study means extraneous variables could have affected the results. For example, the researchers were unable to control how much time the participants had spent walking in the area. It’s possible that people who recalled more did so because of their greater familiarity with the area, rather than the interference from subsequent moves.
