memory 4

Question 1

Give two strengths on the theory of interference

Answer 1

Evidence from lab studies consistently demonstrates interference. Many lab studies have been carried out into interference (e.g. McGeoch and McDonald). Most of these studies show that both types of interference are very likely causes of forgetting from LTM. Lab experiments control the effects of extraneous variables which increases the validity of the findings on interference.


Real-life studies support the interference explanation. Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they had played so far in that season, week by week. Accurate recall was not related to how long ago the match was
More important was the number of games played before recall. This suggests more games caused interference with the memories. This study suggests that interference could apply to some everyday situations.

Question 2

Give three limitations on the theory of interference.

Answer 2

The research is limited by its use of artificial materials. The stimulus material used is often word lists. This is very different from things we remember in everyday life. In everyday life we remember faces, events, what we like to eat etc. The use of artificial materials makes interference much more likely in the lab.


Time periods between learning and recall in lab experiments are short. The research reduces the whole experience of learning into a short time period which is not reflective of how we learn and remember most information in real life. This means that conclusions from the research should not be generalised outside of the lab experience. This means the role of interference may have been exaggerated.



Interference effects may be overcome using cues. Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants five lists of 24 words. Each list was organised into 6 categories (e.g metals, types of fruit). Categories were not explicit but obvious. Recall was about 70% for the first list but fell with each additional list. When given cues to aid recall (told the names of the categories) recall rose back up to about 70%. This suggests memories of the words were stored in LTM but interference prevented access. Interference disappeared with a cue. This suggests that the memories had not been replace by interference but had been forgotten due to retrieval failure (accessibility).