Explanations for forgetting: Interference Flashcards
interference
forgetting because one memory blocks another causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten
proactive interference PI
forgetting occurred when the older memories, already stored, disrupt the recall of newer memories. The degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar
e.g. your teacher has learned so many in the past, she has difficulty remembering the names of her current class
retroactive interference
forgetting occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories already stored. The degree of forgetting is again greater when the memories and similar
e.g. your teacher has learned so many new names this year, she has difficulty remembering the names of the students last year
explain the interference theory
some forgetting takes place because of interference - when 2 pieces of info disrupt each other
- this results in forgetting one/ both , or some distortion of memory
- interference has been proposed mainly as the explanation for forgetting long term memory
how does interference link to the long term memory?
Once info reach LTM, it is permanent so any forgetting pf LTM is most likely because we can’t get access to them even though they available
- interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them - which is forgetting
what was the research on effects of similarity?
In both PI and RI, the interference is worse when the memories / learning are similar , as discovered by John McGeoch and William McDonald 1931.
Procedure:
McGeoch and McDonald studies retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between the two sets of materials.
Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could 100% remember them. Then they learned a new list . there were six groups of participants who had to learn different types of new lists
G1: synonyms, G2 antonyms G3 words unrelated to the original ones, G4 consonant syllables G5 3 digit numbers, G6 - no new list, participants rested(control condition)
Findings: participants asked to recall the original list of words, most similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall. Shows interference is strongest when the memories are similar are similar
what is an explanation of the effects of similarity?
similarity affects recall because the PI previously stored information makes new similar information more difficult to store
or because RI (new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity.
what is a real world interference - strength ?
STRENGTH: evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations
Baddeley + Hitch 1977 asked rugby players to recall names of the team they had played against during rugby season - players all played for the same time interval (one season) but the number of intervening games varied because some players missed matches due to injury.
Players who played most games (most interference memory) had poorest recall
Shows interference can operate in at least some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory
what is a counterpoint?
Interference may cause some forgetting in everyday situations but is unusual - because conditions for interference to occur are quite rare
Very unlike lab studies where lots of control means researchers can create ideal situations for interference .
Suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to a lack of cues
Interference and cues - Limitation
interference is temporary + can be overcome by using cues / hints
Tulving and Psotka 1971 gave participants a list of words organised into categories , one list at a time (pp’s not told what the categories are) . Recall averaged about 70% for the first list but became worse as the pp’s learned each additional list (proactive interference) .
At the end of the procedure the pp’s were given a cued recall test- told the names and categories
Recall rose again to 70% .
Shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, a findings not predicted by interference theory
support from drug studies STRENGTH
comes from evidence of retrograde facilitation
Coenen and van Luijtelaar 1997 gave participants list of words, later asked them to recall the list , assuming the intervening experiences would act as interference
They found that when a list of words was learned under influence of drug diazepam , recall one week later was poor (compared with placebo control group)
When a list was learned before the drug was taken, later recall was better than the placebo
So the drug actually improved recall of material learned beforehand
Wixted 2004 suggests that the drug prevents new info (experienced after taking the drug) reaching parts of the brain involved in processing memories so cannot interfere retroactively with information already stored
This finding shows that forgetting can be due to interference - reduce the interference and you reduce forgetting
VALIDITY ISSUES
Most studies of interference theory are lab based - so researchers can control variables . Control over confounding variables also means studies show a clear link between interference and forgetting.
But these studies use artificial materials and unrealistic procedures - in everyday life we often learn something and recall it much later (studying for exams)
