explanations for forgetting-interference

• What is interference?


  Forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten.
• What are the two types of interference?

  It is very likely that the two (or more) memories that are interfering with each other were stored at different times so psychologists recognise that there are two types of interference: proactive interference and retroactive interference.
• Describe proactive interference? Give an example?

  Proactive interference is when past memories, already stored, disrupt the recall of newer memories. For example, your teacher has learned so many names in the past she now has difficulty remembering the names of her current class.
• Describe retroactive interference? Give an example?

  Retroactive interference is when recent memories disrupt the recall of older memories, already stored. For example, your teacher has learned so many new names this year that she has difficulty remembering the names of the students last year.
• What makes interference worse?

  When information/memories are similar.
• Who did research on the effects of similarity in both PI and RI and discovered that interference is made worse when memories/info is similar?

  McGeoch and McDonald (1931).
• Describe McGeoch and McDonald's research on the effects of similarity? (Procedure and findings).

  They studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials. Participants were made to learn a list of words until they could remember them fully. Participants then had to learn a new list; there were six groups each with different types of new lists.

  It was found that the group who learnt the most similar types of words to the original list (synonyms) produced the worst recall when they recalled their original list. This shows that interference is stronger when information is similar.
• Explain the two reasons as to why similarity affects recall?

  It could be due to PI- previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store. Or it could be due to RI- the new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity.
• AO3: strength, describe the real life research support for interference as an explanation for forgetting?

  Baddeley and Hitch (1977) investigated interference in real life specifically real sport. Their study supports the idea of retroactive interference. They tested rugby players recall of the teams they had played against during a rugby season. The players all played for the same interval (over one season) but the number of intervening games varied because some players missed matches due to injury. Players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had the poorest recall. This study shows that interference can operate in real world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.
• AO3: Limitation- describe how interference is a limited explanation for forgetting in everyday life?

  Interference in everyday life is unusual as the conditions necessary for interference to occur are relatively rare. This is very unlike lab studies, where the high degree of control means a researcher can create ideal conditions for interference. For example, two memories have to be fairly similar in order to interfere with one another which may happen occasionally in daily life, like if you were to revise similar subjects close in time, but not often. This suggests that interference is a limited explanation for forgetting, reducing its value, and suggests most forgetting may be better explained by other theories e.g retrieval failure due to lack of cues.
• AO3: limitation, describe the research that suggests interference is temporary and can be overcome using cues? (Something the interference theory did not predict).


  Tulving et al gave participants lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time (participants were not told what the categories were). Recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse as the participants learned each additional list (proactive interference). At the end of the procedure participants were given a cued recall test- they were told the names of the categories. Recall rose again to 70% showing that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, a finding not predicted by the interference theory.