Explanations for forgetting

• What is the interference theory?

  This occurs when two pieces of information disrupt each other, resulting in forgetting one or both pieces. This mainly happens in LTM as data there is 'permanent' therefore forgetting is due to a disruption in access to the information.
• What are the two types of interference?

  1. Proactive interference (an older memory interfering with a newer one)
  2. Retroactive interference (when a newer memory interferes with an old one)
• Research on effects of similarity in interference.

  McGeoch & McDonald (1931)

  Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy. All 6 groups then learned a new list.

  Group 1. synonyms

  Group 2. antonyms

  Group 3. unrelated words

  Group 4. constant syllables

  Group 5. three - digit numbers

  Group 6. No new list

  Group 1's performance was the worst showing that interference is the strongest when memories are similar.
• Strengths of the explanations for forgetting through interference. (A)

  Real world application.

  Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of people they played against in a season.

  Players who played the most games had the poorest recall due to interference. This increases the validity of the theory.
• Strengths for the explanations of forgetting through interference (B)

  SUPPORT FROM DRUG STUDIES

  Coenen & Luijtelaar (1997) Found that when a list of words was learned under the influence of diazepam, one week later recall was poor. When the list was learned before the drug was taken recall was better than the control group. This shows that forgetting can be due to interference, and by reducing the interference you reduce the forgetting.
• Limitations for the explanation for forgetting through interference.

  Interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues.

  Tulving & Psotka (1971) Organised the word lists into categories, participants were not told the categories. Recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse with each list learned (Proactive interference) Participants were then given cued recall test. Recall then rose back to 70%.

  This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility.