Explainations for Forgetting - Interference

Forgetting

Person’s loss of the ability to recall or recognize something that they have previously learned

Interference

Forgetting because 1 memory blocks another, causing 1 or both memories to be distorted or forgotten

Proactive interference

• Forgetting occurring when older memories disrupt the recall of newer memories

  • e.g. a teacher learned so many names in the past, she has difficulty remembering the names of her current class

Proactive interference STUDY

• Underwood (1957) showed PI could be equally significant as RI

• Analyzed findings from many students & concluded when participants have to learn a new series of word lists, they don’t learn the lists of words encountered later on in the sequence as well as the word lists from earlier on

• If participants memorized 10 or more lists, after 24 hours, remembered approx. 20% of what they learned

• If only learned 1 word list, recall was over 70%

• Each list makes it harder to learn subsequent list

Retroactive interference

• Forgetting occurring when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories already stored.

  • E.g. teacher has learned so many new names this year that she has difficulty remembering names of her students from last year

Retroactive Interference STUDY

• Muller & Pilzecker (1900)

• Gave participants a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins & then after retention interval, asked participants to recall list

• Performance was less good if participants has been given an intervening task between initial learning & recall

• Intervening task reduced RI as later task interfered w. what had been previously been learned

Similarity of Test Materials (McGeoch & McDonald, 1931)

• Gave participants a list of 10 adjectives (List A)

• After learning, there was a resting interval of 10 minutes during which they learned List B, followed by recall

• Findings - If List B was synonyms of List A, recall was poor (12% recall), if List B was nonsense syllables, this had less effect (26% recall), if List B was numbers it had the least effect (37% recall)

• Conclusion - Interference in strongest the more similar the items are

Effects of interference are even worse when the 2 memories are similar.

Limitation 1 of Interference (Research atrifical)

Point: 1 issue w. the evidence supporting interference explanation of forgetting is its methodology such as the use of lab experiments (controlled method looking at the cause & effect)

Evidence: For example, Underwood used artificial materials (materials that do not reflect everyday life situations) in this study such as word lists

Explain: In everyday life, people do not always need to remember lists of words. it could be that they need to remember directions or a to-do list.

Link: Therefore, this study lacks mundane realism and interference may occur stronger in other relevant situations. This also means that this lacks ecological validity as we are unable to generalize to other situations

However: Although the counterargument is that interference effects have been observed in everyday situations.

Strength 1 of Interference (Real-world interference)

Point: 1 strength is that there is evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations

Evidence: for example Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams they recently played over a rugby season. Time interval from start to end of season was same for all players but no. of intervening games was different for each player because of missed games.

Explain / Link: This study shows that players who played most games forgot proportionately more because of interference.

However: Interference may be a poor explanation to forgetting because there are stronger explanations such as retrieval failure (lack of cues)

Discussion 1 for Interference (Individual differences)

Point: There is evidence some people are less affected by proactive interference than others

Evidence: For example, Kane & Engle (2000) demonstrated individuals w. a greater working memory span were less susceptible to PI. Researchers tested this by giving participants 3 word lists to learn. Those participants w. low working memory spans showed greater PI when recalling 2nd & 3rd lists than did participants w. higher spans

Explain: A further test suggested having a greater working memory span meant having greater resources to consciously control processing & counteract the effects of PI

Link: This highlights the role that individual differences play in how people are affected.