Interference

• • interference: The explanation for forgetting in which one memory disrupts the recall of another (more likely to happen when the memories are similar)
• • Proactive interference: when past info interferes with the recall of a new info (eg, driving on the right, UK, in a country that drives on the left) - Benton Underwood 1957, analysis of many studies, Ps often remembered word lists learnt later less than the ones learnt first, only remembered 20% words when learnt 10 lists but remembered 70% when only learning one
• • Retroactive interference: new info interferes with the recall of with past info (eg, driving on the left after returning to UK, where it should be on the right) - Müller and Pilzecker 1900, Ps learnt list of nonsense syllables for 6 minutes, retention interval, then asked to recall. Retention less accurate if given intervening task in between, forgetting the first learnt info
• • McGeoch and McDonald 1931, similarity of info test. A: list of adj, B: list of either synonyms of A or nonsense syllables or numbers. When B was synonyms, recall 12%, when B nonsense syllables, recall 26%, when B numbers, recall 37%
• • Baddeley and Hitch 1977, real world interference. Rugby players remembering teams they played in a season. Players who missed a few games remembered more team names than those who played all games
• AO3 Support:

  • Can be applied to real world topics. Danaher et Al 2008, when exposed to messages of two competing brands within a week, the message is more easily forgotten. Suggests compounding most advertisements within a single day rather than spreading through the week
• AO3 Criticism:

  • Most research based on artificial word lists, doesn't relate to everyday uses of memory. Ps also may lack motivation to actually learn words, making interference effects seem larger
  • Interference only occurs sometimes irl, and needs certain conditions to be met, so it's not the only explanation of forgetting. Anderson 2000, concludes there's no doubt interference does play a certain role, but the extent of forgetting it explains is unclear
• AO3 criticism:

  • Ceraso 1967, if memory retested after 24 hrs, recognition (accessibility) showed spontaneous recovery, whereas recall (availability) remained the same. suggests interference is due to temporary inaccessibility of memories rather than actual loss (unavailability)
  • Kane and Engle 2000, individuals with greater working memory were less susceptible to proactive interference. Ps with lower working memory are more susceptible to proactive interference. Key differences between individuals make effects of interference vary