Memory : Interference Theory Flashcards
Why don’t we forget?
According to interference theory, forgetting does not occur because information is lost from Long Term Memory but rather because forgetting is a result of being unable to access the information in long term memory.
Why does interference cause forgetting?
Interference theory says that we forget because of interference between separate piece of information stored in long term memory. This interference means we retrieve the wrong information and fail to retrieve the right information.
What makes interference more or less likely?
Interference is proposed to be more serious, and therefore lead to greater forgetting, if the information is more similar, and less significant if the information is dissimilar.
Why does the Temporal gap affect interference between learning old and new information?
The shorter the gap, the greater the interference is caused, the longer the gap, the less the interference.
Outline Proactive Interference. Example?
> This is when information from an older memory interferes with the newer memory, meaning we retrieve the old memory by accident, leading to forgetting the new memory.
EG. A student writes the date as 06/01/2019 even though the date is 06/01/2020.
Outline Retroactive interference. Example?
> This occurs when new information from a new memory interferes with an older memory, meaning we retrieve the new memory by accident, leading to forgetting the old memory.
EG. A student remembers better what he learned at the end of a school year in comparison to the beginning of the school year.
Out of the TWO types of interferences, which is considered the more common one?
Retroactive interference is considered the more common and more problematic type of interference compared to proactive.
What research support is there for retroactive interference as an explanation for forgetting?
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 (eg list of synonyms). 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 interference. When participants learnt the second list, new information generated new information that retroactively interfered with the recall of the older memory. Thus, the findings that recall was worst when information in the two lists was most similar supports the theory that interference is greater when information is more 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.
What is a Limitation of interference theory?
That much of its supporting research lacks ecological validity. For example, McGeoch and McDonalds research on interference tests participants on random lists of words in a laboratory setting. This is artificially generated as in real life people are more likely to learn information with meaning (eg names). Although this may help control variables, it does mean the research becomes highly artificial. Therefore, it can be difficult to generalise the conclusions of interference research to everyday settings where real life forgetting occurs. Furthermore, Baddeley identified another issue with ecological validity, this being 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. Again, meaning generalising from interference theory research to real world situations of forgetting is difficult.
What research is there 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 the times they had recently moved. This can be explained by retroactive interference as the more someone moves, the more street names they learn which interferes with the memory of the original street names. Thus, provides support for interference theory. Similarly, this study’s findings are strengthened by its strong ecological validity, as the info being recalled (street names) and causing interference (number or moves) was naturalistic, meaning the findings are more generalisable to real world situations of forgetting. However, the lack of control means EVs could have affected the results. E.g. the researchers were unable to control how much time the participants had spent walking in the area. Thus, it is possible that people who recalled more did so because of their greater familiarity with the area rather than the interference from subsequent moves.
