MEMORY: Interference Theory Flashcards
What is interference
whe two pieces of info disrupt each other
end result = forgetting of one or both / some distortion of memory
interference is mainly proposed as an expalnation of forgetting mainly in
LTM
Why is Interference mainly proposed as an esplanation of forgetting in LTM
once info reached LTM more or less permanent
therefore forgetting of LTM most likely cause we can’t access to them even thought they’re available
What does interfernce between memories do
make it harder for us to locate them and this is experienced as forgetting
its likely the two/more pieces of interfernece were stored at
different times
What are the two types of interference
proactive
retroactive
What is Proactive Interference
older memory interferes with a newer one
What is Retroactive Interference
newer memory interferes with the retrieval of an older one
In PI and RI when is interference worse
when memories/learning are similar
Who carried out research into the effects of similarity
Mcgeoh and Mcdonald
What type of interference did McGeoh and McDonald study
retroactive interference
How did M and M study RI
by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials
What did pt have to do then what
Pt had to learn a list of 10 words till they could rember them with 100% accuracy
then learned a new list
How many groups if pt and what did they have to lean
6 groups of pt
learn diff types of new lists
What were the 6 differnt groups
synonyms - similar meaning to og words antonyms words unrelated to og ones consonant syllables 3 digit numbers no new list - control condition , pt just rested
when pt asked to recall og list of words who produced the worst recall
synonyms list
What does synoym producig teh worst recall show
interference strongest when memories are similar
How do we know who did best to worse
use list in q 15 and go from top ‘worst’ to last ‘best’
what are the reasons similarity effects recall
PI
RI
explaoin how PI similarity affects recall
old stored info makes new
similar info more difficult to store
explaoin how RI similarity affects recall
new info overwrites old simlar info/mem becuase of similarity
eval uation points
evidence of interference effect in everyday situations baddeley and hitch
counterpoint - interference can occur in everyday situations but the conditions for this to happen are rare
limitation - interference is temporary but can be overcome by using cues
strength - support from drug studies - evidence of retrograde facilitation
explain the strength of evidence of interference effect in everyday situations
x and hitch asked x players to x team names they played in a x
players who played x games(most x for memory) had the x recall
shows x can operate in some x world situations increasing the x of the theory
baddeley and hitch asked rugby players to recall team names they played in a season
players who played most games(most interference for memory) had the poorest recall
shows interference canoperate in some real world situations increasing the validity of the theory
explain Counterpoint for evidence of interference effect in everyday situations
x needed for interference to occur are quite x
very unlike x studies were the high degree of x means researcher can create ideal x for interference
two memories must eb fairly x for interference to occur
may happen x in everday life e.g revising x and spanish close in time
sugessts most forgetting x explained by other x such as x failure due to lack of x
conditinos needed for interference to occur are quite rare
very unlike lab studies were the high degree of control means researcher can create ideal conditions for interference
two memories must eb fairly similar for interference to occur
may happen occasionally in everday life e.g revising french and spanish close in time
sugessts most forgetting better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to lack of cues
explain limitation of interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues
researchers gave pt lists of words organised into x , one list at a x - pt weren’t told the x
1st list recall=x got worse as learned more (xx)
@ end of procedure pt given x recall x - told the name of the x
recall rose again to about x%
shows inteference causes x loss of accessibility to material still in x , a finding not x by interference theory
researchers gave pt lists of words organised into categories , one list at a time - pt weren’t told the categories
1st list recall=70% got worse as learned more (PI)
@ end of procedure pt given cued recall test - told the name of the categories
recall rose again to about 70%
shows inteference causes temporary loss of accessibility to material still in LTM , a finding not predicted by interference theory
explain support from evidence of retrograde facillitation
pt list of words later asked them to recall list ,
assuming x experiences would act as x
list of words learned under drug
recall one week later x compared with x control group
when lsit learned x drug was taken, x recall better than the x
so drug imporved x of material learned x
was suggested drug prevents x info (after taking drug) reaching parts of the x involved in processing x
so it cannot interfere x with x already stored
findings show x can be due to interference - reduce the x reduce the forgetting
pt list of words later asked them to recall list ,
assuming intervening experiences would act as inteference
list of words learned under drug diazepam
recall one week later poor compared with placebo control group
when lsit learned before drug was taken, later recall better than the placebo
so drug imporved recall of material learned beforehand
was suggested drug prevents new info (after taking drug) reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories
so it cannot interfere retroactivley with info already stored
findings show forgetting can be due to interference - reduce the intefrerence reduce the forgetting
