EFF: Interference

• Proactive interference occurs when old information stored in long-term memory interferes with the learning of new information. This usually occurs when the new information is similar to the old information. An everyday example of proactive interference is when you try to remember a new mobile phone number and your memory for your old number disrupts your attempts to remember this new information.
• Retroactive interference occurs when the learning of new information interferes with the recall of old information from long-term memory. For example, once you have learned a new mobile number, it is often very difficult to recall your old number.
• Interference theory is a theory of forgetting in long-term memory, suggesting that forgetting can occur when two pieces of information conflict with one another, resulting in the inability to access either one or both pieces of information
• There are two main types of interference:

  • Proactive interference: old information disrupts the recall of new information
  • Retroactive interference: new information disrupts the recall of old information
• McGeoch and McDonald's 1931 research on interference found that the effects of interference are most prominent when the two pieces of information are similar
• Interference can be overcome by providing participants with recall cues, as shown by Tulving and Psotka's 1971 study
• Baddeley and Hitch's 1977 study with rugby players demonstrated that interference can account for forgetting in the real world, but it's important to note that interference conditions in a lab may not always reflect real-world conditions
• When evaluating interference theory, it's crucial to consider both its strengths, like explaining real-world forgetting, and limitations, such as the controlled conditions of lab studies
• 𝙄𝙉𝙏𝙀𝙍𝙁𝙀𝙍𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀:  

  • The ways in which information is lost from long-term memory
  • It is when one memory prevents the retrieval of another memory (it gets in the way)
  • There are two types: retroactive and proactive
  • Interference can occur when learning or memories are similar
• INTERFERENCE DEFINITION:

  Forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten.
• PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE DEFINITION:

  Forgetting occurs when older memories, already stored, disrupt the recall of newer memories. The degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar.
• RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE DEFINITION:

  Forgetting occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories already stored. The degree of forgetting is greater when memories are similar.
• Interference has been proposed mainly as an explanation for forgetting in the LTM. Once information has reached the LTM is it more or less permanent. Therefore, any forgetting of LTMs is due to them not being accessible even though they are available.

  Interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, and this is experienced as forgetting.
• 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘:

  "𝘱𝘳𝘰" = 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘦𝘸

  Occurs when an older memory disrupts the recall of (interferes with) a newer one.

  E.g. you try to remember a new mobile phone number and your memory for your old number disrupts your attempts to remember this new information.
• 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘:

  "𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘰" = 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘭𝘥

  Occurs when a newer memory interferes with an older one.

  E.g. once you have learned a new mobile number, it is very difficult to recall your old number.
• 𝙀𝙁𝙁𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝙎𝙄𝙈𝙄𝙇𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙏𝙔:

  McGeoch and McDonald (1931) studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials.

  Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could recall them with 100% accuracy. They then learned a new list.

  
  

  6 Groups:

  1. synoynms
  2. antonyms
  3. unrelated words
  4. consonant syllables
  5. 3-digit numbers
  6. no new list (control)

  The synoynms of the original list (the most similar material) produced the worst recall. This shows that interference is strongest when memories are similar.
• 𝙀𝙓𝙋𝙇𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙀𝙁𝙁𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝙎𝙄𝙈𝙄𝙇𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙏𝙔:

  • Proactive Interference: previously stored information makes new information more difficult to store.
  • Retroactive Interference: new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity of the material
• 𝙀𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎:

  1. real-world interference (Baddeley and Hitch)
  2. counterpoint to real-world interference
  3. interference and cues (Tulving and Psotka)
  4. support from drug studies (Coenen and Luijtelaar)
  5. validity issues
• 𝟭. 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟-𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘:

  One strength is that there is evidence of interference effects in everyday situations.

  Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they'd played against during one season. All players played for the same time interval (one season) but the number of interfering games varied as some players missed matches due to injury. Players who played the most games (most interference) had the poorest recall.

  This shows that interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.
• 𝟮. 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗣𝗢𝗜𝗡𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟-𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗦:

  Interference is unusual in everyday situations as the conditions needed for it to occur are relatively rare (material has to be fairly similar) and so happens very little. This is unlike lab studies, in which the researcher has a high degree of control and can create ideal conditions.

  This suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to a lack of cues.
• 𝟯. 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗖𝗨𝗘𝗦:

  One limitation is that interference is temporary and can be overcome using cues.

  Tulving and Psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words organised into secret categories one at a time. Recall averaged 70% for the first list but got progressively worse as each additional list was learned (PI). At the end, participants were given a cued recall test (told the category names) and recall rose to 70% again.

  This shows that interference causes a temporary loss of material from the LTM, a finding not predicted by the interference theory.
• 𝟰. 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗗𝗥𝗨𝗚 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗦:

  Another strength comes from evidence of retrograde facilitation.

  Coenen and Luijtelaar (1997) found that participants who learned a list of words under the influence of the drug diazepam had poorer recall one week later than the placebo control group. But when the list was learned before taking the drug, later recall was better than placebo. The drug improved (facilitated) the recall of information learned beforehand. (See JW2004)

  This finding shows that forgetting can be due to interference (reduce interference = reduce forgetting).
• John Wixted (2004) supported Coenen and Luijtelaar's theory of retrograde facilitation by suggesting that the drug diazepam prevents new information from reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories, so it cannot interfere retroactively with information already stored.

  (See Eval Point 4 - Support From Drug Studies)
• 𝟱. 𝗩𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘𝗦:

  Most studies supporting the interference theory are lab-based, so researchers can control variables (e.g. the time between learning and recall). Control over confounding variables means studies show a clear link between interference and forgetting.

  But these studies use artificial materials and unrealistic procedures. In everyday life we often learn something and recall it much later (e.g. revising for exams).

  Therefore, because lab studies maximise the possibility of interference occurring, they may exaggerate its importance as a cause of forgetting.