Interference

• what is interference?

  one memory disturbs the ability to recall another, this might result in forgetting or disturbing one or the other, or both - this is more likely to happen if the memories are similar
• what is proactive interference?

  previously learnt information interferes with the new information you are trying to store
• what is retroactive interference?

  where a new memory interferes with an older one
• describe the study done by Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

  • aim - to investigate retroactive interference in everyday memory
  • procedure - sample comprised of rugby union players who had played every match in the season and players who had missed some games due to injury. The length of time from the start to the end of the season was the same for all players, and players were asked to recall the names of teams they had played against earlier in the season
• what were the findings of the Baddeley and Hitch (1977) study?

  • players who had played the most games forget proportionately more games than those who had played fewer games due to injury
• what was the conclusion of the Baddeley and Hitch (1977) study?

  • it was concluded that this was the result of retroactive interference, as the learning of new information (new team names) interferes with the memory of old information (earlier team names)
• describe the Mcgeoch and Mcdonald (1931) study

  • aim - to investigate interference when memories are similar
  • procedure - participants had to remember a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy, they then learned a new list of words from one of the following 6 groups: synonyms, antonyms, unrelated to original ones, nonsense syllables, three-digit numbers and no new list
• what were the findings of Mcgeoch and Mcdonald (1931) study?

  • when participants were asked to recall original list, their performance depended on the nature of the second list - worst recall was found with group 1
  • this shows that interference is strongest when memories are similar
• what is release from proactive interference?

  deliberately separating similar topics to avoid confusion and poor recall
• Most of the evidence supporting this theory comes from lab studies e.g. McGeogh and McDonald (1931). This is a strength as the extraneous variables can be controlled and there experiments can be replicated, so reliability can be tested.
• Various studies e.g. Tulving and Psotka (1971) argue that the loss of information may only be temporary and that the theory of interference only explains certain types of forgetting. Therefore interference isn't a true explanation for forgetting and even if it was we don't know if everyone would be affected in the same way.
• Danaher et al (2008) showed that sometimes in real life interference is similar to how the theory suggests.

  They demonstrated this using TV adverts for similar products but from different brands.
• Lab studies use artificial materials e.g. word lists which are meaningless to the participants as they dont represent meaningful everyday situations eg, shopping lists. The use of artificial stimuli means that interference is much more likely to be demonstrated in a lab than in real life, thus reducing the validity of these studies.
• Interference effects have been successfully replicated in everyday situations (quasi experiments) such as Baddeley and Hitch's (1977) study of rugby players.
• In a lab memories created are often all very similar so it can be easy to get these confused, unlike in real life where it would be easier to remember distinct events
• Participants often won't have the same motivation to remember stimuli used in an experiment as they have to remember things that are important in their lives e.g. for an exam. So, their recall in the experiment may be less accurate than in reality and make the effects of interference appear stronger than they really are.
• Lab studies investigating interference often have quite short time periods between the learning of information and subsequent recall. Whereas in reality we don't generally learn information and then recall it in such a short time frame.
• Baddeley and Hitch (1977) found that rugby players were better at remembering names of opposing teams when playing against them again compared with other teams they had never played against before. This shows that interference does happen in real life.
• The study by Baddeley and Hitch (1977) was a quasi-experiment because there was no control group or random allocation of participants into groups.
• Another strength of the study by Baddeley and Hitch (1977) is that it uses a naturalistic setting rather than a controlled one like a lab.