A03

• What are the strengths of interference?

  1. Real-world application
• What are the limitations of interference?

  1. Ignores individual differences
  2. Artificial research
  3. Interference and cues
• Strength = real-world application

  • When people are exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short period of time there is likely to be interference
  • Danaher et al. (2008) found that both recall and recognition of an advertiser‘s message were impaired when participants were exposed to two adverts for competing brands within a week
  • In order to enhance memory trace they should run multiple exposures on one day rather than spread out over a week
  • Interference research can help advertisers maximise effectiveness of their campaigns and target spending effectively
• Limitation = ignores individual differences

  • Evidence that some people are less affected by proactive interferences than others
  • Kane and Engle (2000) found that individuals with a greater working memory span are less likely to experience proactive interference
  • Participants were given three word lists to learn and those with low working memory spans showed greater proactive interference when recalling the second and third lists
  • This highlights the role that individual differences play in how people are affected by interference
• Limitation = artificial research

  • Most of the research which provides support for interference have been carried out in labs, using artificial materials such as words lists and nonsense syllables
  • Therefore the findings may not relate to everyday uses of memory
  • HOWEVER - Baddeley and Hitch (1977) investigated interference effects in a more realistic situation using rugby players
• Limitation = interference and cues

  • Interference is temporary and can be overcome using cues
  • Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time
  • Recall averaged about 70% for the first list but became progressively worse for each list that followed (proactive interference)
  • At the end of the procedure participants were given a cued recall test - told the names of the categories
  • Recall rose again to about 70%
  • Interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material still in LTM