Interference Theory

• How did Underwood (1957) study proactive interference? And what did he find?


  A lab study in which participants memorised 3 letter trigrams and counted backwards from the hundreds to avoid maintenance rehearsal; finding that participant: remembered the trigrams presented first irrespective of interval length
• Why can Underwood (1957)’s study be critiqued?


  The task lacks mundane realism and so cannot be extrapolated
• Why is Underwood (1957) study limited in its findings of proactive interference?


  Nature of lab study leads to a misleading insight into human memory and recall; study cannot fully contribute to psychology’s aim of understanding and explaining human behaviour
• Why is Baddeley and Hitch’s (1977) study better in understanding proactive interference?


  Conducted in a natural setting
• How did Baddeley and Hitch (1977) conduct their study? And what did they find?


  Rugby players had been asked to recall the game they played in the season; most were able to recall a similar percentage, those who had played the most games forgot proportionately more
• What does Baddeley and Hitch’s (1977) findings suggest about proactive interference?


  Applies in real-life settings, and is better in comparison to Underwood’s attempt to generalise to everyday life
• Why has interference theory been critiqued for being artificial and lacking ecological validity?


  Most studies are conducted in controlled settings and so limit the utility of the findings; therefore may not apply beyond theoretical value
• Outline and evaluate interference as an explanation of forgetting (16 marks)


  AO1: Intro and retroactive interference

  AO1: Proactive interference

  AO3 (-): Underwood (1957)

  AO3 (+): Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

  AO3 (-): Lacks ecological validity