Interference Theory Flashcards
Definition of interference
forgetting (LTM) because one memory disrupts another, causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten. Likely because we can’t access them even though they are available. Interference between memories makes it harder for us to location.
What is proactive interference?
forgetting occurs when older memories, already stored, disrupt the recall of newer memories. The degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar.
Old disrupts new (pro= forward)
What is retroactive interference?
forgetting occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories already stored. The degree of forgetting is again greater when the memories are similar.
new disrupts old (retro = back)
Example of proactive interference
Learning to drive in the UK (on the left) then driving in Spain and almost causing an accident for failing to drive on the right.
Example of retrospective interference
A witness to a crime has heard so many descriptions of the crime that they cannot remember what they physically saw.
When is forgetting more likely: according to interference theory?
When memories are similar
Why is forgetting likely with interference theory?
We can’t access the memories even though they are available, interference makes it harder to locate the memory
McGeoch and McDonald (1931) procedure and findings
They studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials. Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy. They then learned a new list. There were six groups of participants who had to learn different types of lists:
· Group 1 – synonyms – words with the same meanings as the originals
· Group 2 – antonyms – words with the opposite meanings as the originals
· Group 3 – words unrelated to the original list
· Group 4 – nonsense syllables
· Group 5 – three-digit numbers
· Group 6 – no new list – these participants just rested
When the participants then recalled the original list of words, their performance depended on the nature of the second list. The most similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall. This suggests that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
Supporting evidence McGeoch and McDonalds study and what it shows (retroactive)
Group 1 – synonyms – words with the same meanings as the originals
· Group 2 – antonyms – words with the opposite meanings as the originals
· Group 3 – words unrelated to the original list
· Group 4 – nonsense syllables
· Group 5 – three-digit numbers
· Group 6 – no new list – these participants just rested
This supports the idea of forgetting due to retroactive interference as proposed by the theory and that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
Supporting evidence - Tulving and Psotka and what it shows (proactive)
Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time (participants were not told what the categories were). Recall averaged about 70% for the first list but became progressively worse for each list as they learned each additional one (proactive interference).
This suggests that forgetting can occur because of proactive interference as the information on the first list (old memory) disrupted the ability to recall the information on the later lists (new memory), supporting the validity of interference theory as an explanation of forgetting.
Undermining evidence - temporary forgetting and what it shows
The loss of the information may only be temporary. Interference theory suggests that the information is still available, it is just inaccessible. This lack of accessibility may be temporary. For example, Tulving and Psotka (1971) also found that when they gave participants a cued recall test (telling the names of the categories to act as a trigger to access the memories), recall rose to about 70%.
This suggests that interference only causes a temporary loss of accessibility to the material that is still available in LTM, which suggests that interference is not a true explanation of forgetting.
Supporting evidence - Baddeley and Hitch (1977) and what it shows
Baddeley and Hitch (1977) 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. They found that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place. Much more important was the number of games they had played in the meantime. So a player’s recall of a team three weeks ago was better if they had played no matches since then.
This supports that interference explanations can apply to forgetting in at least some everyday situations. Particularly, it supports retroactive interference as it suggests that the new memories (more recently played teams) disrupted the old memories (teams played less recently), leading to forgetting of the old memories.
