C2 - Explanations for forgetting: Interference Flashcards
(9 cards)
Interference
2 pieces of info disrupt each other
Worse when memories similar
- In PI, previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
- In RI, new information overwrites previous memory which are similar
Proactive interference
Older memory disrupts newer one
Retroactive interference
Newer memory disrupts older one
McGeoch & McDonald - Effects of similarity procedure
Pts asked to learn list of words to 100% accuracy
Then given new list to learn, varying in similarity to old list
Group 1 - synonyms
Group 2 - antonyms
Group 3 - unrelated
Group 4 - consonant syllables
Group 5 - three-digit numbers
Group 6 - no new list
McGeoch & McDonald - Effects of similarity findings
- Peformance depended on second list. Most similar material (synonyms) produced worst recall
- Interference strongest when memories are similar
Evaluations of interference (SLS)
S - Some support for interference in real-world situations
L - Interference effects may be overcome using cues
S - Support from drug studies
S - Some support for interference in real-world situations
- Baddeley & Hitch asked rugby players to recall names of teams they played against during a season
- Players didn’t play same number of games. Those who played most had poorest recall (most interference)
- Interference operates in some everyday situations, increasing validity
L - Interference effects may be overcome using cues
- Tulving & Psotka gave pts list of words organised into categories
- Recall of first list 70%, fell with each new list. When given a cued recall test, recall rose to 70% again
- Interference causes temporary loss of access to material still in LTM
S - Support from drug studies
- Material learned just before taken diazepam recalled better than a placebo group one week later
- Drug stopped new info reaching brain area that process memories, so it can’t interfere with stored info
- Shows forgetting due to interference
