Evaluation

• While interference can be produced in a lab it may not always be a reliable explanation in the real world because it does not represent everyday examples of interference.
• A limitation is that interference can be overcome by cues One limitation of interference is that interference is temporary and can be overcome by cues ( help us remember something) Endel tulving and Joseph ptoska gave participants a list of words organised into categories e.g. animals and fruits participants were not told what the categories were. Recall averaged about 70% for the original list but became progressively worse as participants learned each additional list (proactive interference).
• At the end of the procedure participants were given a cued recall they were told the names of the categories the effects of interference disappeared the recall increased again to about 70%. This research shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to materials that is still in LTM but cannot be retrieved to the lack of cues for this reason retrieval failure is more important explanation of forgetting than interference.
• Research to support interference One strength is that there is evidence of the effects of interference. Mc goech and McDonald studies interference by changing the amount of similarities between 2 sets of materials . Participants first learnt a set of words when they had to learn another list Participants recall of the original list was lower with synonyms compared to acronyms, unrelated adjectives, numbers of nonsense syllables. This demonstrates that interference is stronger when memories are similar.
• A strength is that there is support for interference in real world situations – rugby union players A strength is that there is evidence of interference in everyday situations for example baddley and hitch examined rugby union players who had played every match in the season and players who had missed some games due to injury. The players were asked to recall the names of the teams they had played against earlier in the season . Baddley and hitch found that players who had played the most games most interference for memory had the poorest recall. These results support the idea of Retroactive interference as the learning of new information new team names interfered with the memory of old information earlier team names. It also suggests that interference can operate in real world situations increasing the validity of the theory.
• However, interference may cause forgetting in everyday situations but is usually rare . Interference research is usually criticised for being artificial and lacking ecological validity as most research examining interference is carried out in a lab where there is a high level of control allowing the researcher to create ideal conditions for interference.
• One limitation is that interference is temporary and can be Overcome by using cues. Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants list of words organised Into categories e.g animals, fruits (participants were not told what the categories were. Recall averaged about 70% for the original list, But become progressively worse as participants learned each Additional list (proactive interference). At the end of the procedure participants were given a cued recall (they were told the names of the categories) the effects of Interference disappeared. The recall increased again to about 70%. This study shows interferences causes a temporary loss of Accessibility to materials that is still in LTM but cannot be retrieved To the lack of cues. For this reason, retrieval failure is more Important explanation of forgetting than interferences.
• Another research to support interference is drug studies. Research from Anton and Gilles asked participants to recall list of words and asked later to recall them before taking a drug diazepam the drug stopped new information reaching the brain area that processes memory, so it could not retroactively interfere with stored information. They found that material learned before taking the drug participants recall was better than a placebo group . This shows that forgetting is due to Interference as reducing interference reduced forgetting.