Interference A03

• Evidence from lab studies

  Interference in memory is probably one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in the whole of psychology
• Lab experiments

  Thousands of lab experiments have been carried out into this explanation for forgetting, such as McGeoh and McDonalds research
• Validity of the theory of interference

  Most of these studies show that both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM. Lab experiments control the effects of irrelevant influences and thus gives us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for forgetting
• Artificial studies

  Greater chance that interference will be demonstrated in the lab than in real life situations. Stimulus materials used in most studies are lists of words
• Better alternative

  Learning lists of actual words is more realistic than learning lists of consonant syllables. This is still some distance from the things we learn and try to remember in everyday life. Thus, interference ,may not be likely as an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is the lab.
• Real-life studies

  Baddeley and Hitch wanted to find out if interference was a better explanation for forgetting than the passage of time
• Ppts in Baddeley and Hitch experiment


  They asked rugby players to try remember the names of the teams they had played against in that season, week by week. Due to players missing some games so form some, the 'last team' was 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago.
• Results of Baddeley and Hitch

  The results clearly showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches took place. The number of games they played in the meantime was most important. Interference explanations can apply to some every day situations.
• Burke and Skrull

  Presented series of magazine adverts who had to recall the details of what they had seen. They effect of forgetting was greater when the adverts were similar
• Time between learning

  Majority of lab experiments are designed so that the possibility of interference is maximised. An example of how this occurs is in the time period times between learning lists of words and recalling them. For practical reasons, time periods are relatively short so whole experience of learning something and recalling it could be over within an hour
• Interference effects may be overcome using cues

  Tulving and Psotka gave ppts five lists of 24 words and each list organised into 6 categories. The categories were not explicit but it was presumed that they would be obvious to ppts.
• Recall from Tulving and Psotka test

  Recall was 70% for the first word list but this fell as ppts were given each additional list to learn, presumably due to interference, However at the end they were given a cued recall test- they were told the names of the categories as a clue. Recall rose again to about 70%