Interference: Retro & Pro-active

• What is interference in memory?

  Forgetting due to one memory blocking another
• Why is interference suggested as a reason for forgetting?

  It blocks access to long-term memories
• What happens to information in long-term memory?

  It is permanently stored
• What are the two types of interference?

  Proactive and retro interference
• What is proactive interference?

  Forgetting due to older memories disrupting newer ones
• How does the similarity of memories affect proactive interference?

  The degree of forgetting is greater with similar memories
• What is retro interference?

  Forgetting due to newer memories disrupting older ones
• How does the similarity of memories affect retro interference?

  The degree of forgetting is greater with similar memories
• What was the aim of McGeoch & McDonald's (1939) study?

  To investigate the effect of retroactive interference
• What was the procedure in McGeoch & McDonald's (1939) study?

  • Participants learned a list of 10 words
  • They learned a new list with 6 variations:

  1. Synonyms
  2. Antonyms
  3. Unrelated words
  4. Consonants
  5. 3-digit numbers
  6. Control group (no new list)
• Which group produced the worst recall in McGeoch & McDonald's study?

  Group 1 (synonyms to the original list)
• What does the finding from McGeoch & McDonald's study suggest about interference?

  Interference is strongest with similar memories
• What real-world application supports the concept of interference?

  • Baddeley & Hitch (1977) study on rugby players
  • Players recalled team names played against
  • More games played led to poorer recall
• What did Coenen & Van Luijetaar (1997) find regarding drug studies and interference?

  • Participants learned words under diazepam
  • Recall was poor when learned under influence
  • Better recall when learned before taking diazepam
• Why is interference considered unusual?

  Conditions for interference are relatively rare
• What did Tulving & Psotka (1971) conclude about interference?

  • Recall averaged 70% for the first list
  • Recall worsened with additional lists
  • Recall improved to 70% with category cues
• What does Tulving & Psotka's finding suggest about interference?

  Interference causes temporary loss of accessibility
• How does the interference theory predict memory recall?

  It predicts temporary loss of accessibility
• What is a strength for Retro & Pro-active Interference?

  Real World Application

  • Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against
  • The players all played for the same time interval but the number of intervening games varied because some players missed matches due to injury and so players who played the most games had the poorest recall
  • This shows that interference can operate in real life scenarios, increasing its validity
• What is a strength for Retro & Pro-active Interference?

  Support from Drug Studies

  • Coenen & Van Luijetaar (1997) gave participants a list of words and later asked them to recall the list, assuming intervening events would interfere
  • They found that when a list of words was learned under the influence of diazepam, recall was poor but when learnt before taking diazepam, recall was better than the placebo given
  • This finding shows that forgetting can be due to interference and by removing the interference, recall improves
• What is a limitation for Retro & Pro-Active Interference?

  Interference is Unusual

  • The conditions necessary for interference to occur are relatively rare
  • This is unlike lab studies where the high degree of control means a researcher can create ideal conditions for interference 
  • This suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to a lack of cues
• What is a limitation for Retro & Pro-Active Interference?

  Interferences can be Overcome with Cues

  • Tulving et al (1971) gave participants lists of words and concluded that recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became worse as participants learned each additional list
  • At the end of the procedure, the participants were told the names of the categories that the lists were sorted into, in which recall rose again to 70%
  • This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is in the long term memory, which is not predicted by the interference theory