Explanations For Forgetting - Interference Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the interference theory?
Forgetting occurs because similar memories compete with one another, causing confusion and loss of accessibility in long-term memory (LTM).
What does the interference theory explain?
Forgetting in LTM is a result of conflict between similar pieces of information. This makes it harder for the brain to access the correct memory.
What does the conflict in LTM make it hard to do?
Makes it harder for the brain to access the correct memory, leading to forgetting or memory distortion.
When does interference only occur?
Only when information is similar
What are the two types of interference?
-Proactive
-Retroactive
What is proactive interference?
Old memories disrupt the recall of new memories e.g. calling your partner by your ex’s name
What is retroactive interference?
New memories disrupt the recall of old memories e.g. learning a new phone number makes it hard to remember an old one
McGeoch & McDonald (1931)
Aim: To examine whether the similarity of new information affects the amount of retroactive interference on previously learned material.
Procedure:
-Participants learned a list of 10 adjectives (List A) until they recalled them 100% accurately.
-They were then divided into 6 groups, each given a second list (List B) to learn, varying in similarity to the original:
-Synonyms (e.g. big–large)
-Antonyms (e.g. big–small)
-Unrelated words
-Nonsense syllables
-Three-digit numbers
-Control group – no second list
-After learning List B, participants were asked to recall List A.
Findings:
-Greatest forgetting occurred when List B contained synonyms (high similarity).
-Least interference occurred when List B contained numbers (least similarity).
-The control group had the highest recall of List A.
Conclusion: Retroactive interference is strongest when the interfering material is similar.
-This supports the idea that similarity increases memory disruption, providing strong support for interference theory.
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Evaluation
+ High control
- Artificial task
+ Supported by real-life research
- Biased sample
- Alternative explanations
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Evaluation - + High control
P: The study was done in highly controlled conditions
E: The study was done in a lab and the participants learnt the list of words there
E: This means we can trust the results as extraneous variables have been controlled - increasing validity.
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Evaluation - - Artificial task
P: The study used an artificial task
E: The participants memorised and recalled simple word lists, which doesn’t reflect everyday memory use.
E: This means the results might not apply to everyday forgetting, reducing validity
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Evaluation - + Supported by real-life research
P: Other studies show interference happens in real life
E: Baddeley and Hitch (1977) found rugby players forgot matches based on how many gamed they played, not how long along they play them
E: This shows interference is a real explanation for forgetting, not just something that happens in labs
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Evaluation -
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Evaluation - - Alternative explanations
P: Forgetting might happen for other reasons
E: Tulving & Psotka (1971) found people remembered more when given cues.
E: This suggests retrieval failure — not interference — might cause forgetting in some cases.
Baddeley & Hitch (1977) – Interference in Real Life
Aim: To investigate whether interference theory explains forgetting better than the passage of time (decay), using a real-life setting.
Procedure:
-The study involved rugby players who had played different numbers of games over a season due to injuries or dropouts.
-Each player was asked to recall the names of the teams they had played against in the correct order.
-For example, two players might have played the same team six weeks ago, but one had played three games since, and the other only one.
-The number of intervening games (not time since match) was used as the measure of interference.
Findings:
-Accuracy of recall depended more on the number of matches played since the target match, rather than the time passed.
-Players who had played more games between the match they were being asked about and the recall point forgot more team names.
Conclusion:
-This supports interference theory, particularly retroactive interference — new memories (more games played) interfere with older ones.
-It challenges the decay theory, which would predict forgetting happens simply due to the passage of time.
