Interference as an explanation for forgetting

• Interference as an explanation for forgetting that suggests that sometimes we are unable to remember one memory because another one is blocking the recall
• this is particularly evident when the info we are trying to recall and the info blocking it are similar.
• There are two types, proactive and retroactive interference
• Retroactive interference- where a new memory prevents recall of previously learned info, for example, trying to recall details of the multistore model you learnt a week ago but mistaking the stores for the components of the working memory model that was learnt yesterday,
• Proactive interference- when an old memory prevents recall of more recent info, eg trying to recall the German alphabet that you are currently learning but mistaking the letters for the French alphabet that you learnt when you were younger
• Research support for proactive interference, Tulving and Psotka gave pps a word list to remember and their recall was around 70%, pps were then repeatedly given new lists to learn. Their performance decreased with each new list, suggesting their memory of previous lists was interfering with their ability to recall each new one.
• However, research conducted with artificial stimuli such as word lists lack mundane realism. It is not reflective of real instances of forgetting where the info is much more important or meaningful to individuals, this result lacks ecological validity and interference may not be a valid explanation of real life instances of forgetting.
• Nevertheless, there is real life research to support the concept of retroactive interference- Baddeley and Hitch asked Rugby players to recall names of teams they played over the season week by week. They found that the rugby players forgot the teams names more often if they had played multiple teams since. This suggests that the new teams they played interfered with their ability to remember previous ones.
• However, the research from Baddeley and Hitch in real life meant that it had lack of control over extraneous varaibles, therefore reducing the validity of their study, furthermore, the rugby players as an example of this may have played particular teams more often in their time as a player, they may also know some teams well because they may know certain people on them,
• Tulving + Psotka- gave pps a word list to remember and recall was around 70%, pps then repeatedly given new lists to learn, performance decreased with each new list, suggesting interference- memory of previous lists interfered with their ability to remember the new one
• Tulving and Psotka word list evaluation- artificial stimuli, word list lacks mundane realism- not reflective of real instances of forgetting where the information is much more important or meaningful to individuals. This results lack ecological validity and interference may not be a valid explanation of real life instances of forgetting
• baddeley + hitch study of interference, asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during a season, recall was worst for the players who had played most games, suggesting there was more of a chance for interference to get in the way,
• facors affecting interference- similarity- interference is more likely to occur when the two pieces of information are similar- this is due to response competition.
• factors affecting interference- time sensitivity- interference is less likely to occur when there is a large gap between the instances of learning
• limited explanatory power- interference only explains forgetting in cases where two types of information are similar, eg address and password, as examples. But much of what we forget (eg an event that has happened in the past) seemingly cannot be explained as a result of interference,
• Questions of ecological/external validity- psychological research on forgetting due to interference is often based on experiments in artificial (laboratory settings and so the findings might not transfer to real life situations.