3 explanations for forgetting AO1 + 3

What is interference theory?

Forgetting occurs when two memories compete, causing one to be distorted or forgotten.

What are the two types of interference?

• Proactive interference (PI): Old memories disrupt new ones. (P→PAST)

• Retroactive interference (RI): New memories disrupt old ones. (R→RECENT)

what did jacoby et al suggests?

strength of old info interferes with new info - PI

Conditions for interference to occur?

Memories must be similar, e.g., learning two similar word lists.

Strengths of interference theory?

• Lots of lab evidence (e.g., McGeoch & McDonald – similar lists worse recall).

• Real-world support (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch: rugby players forgot teams they played most recently).

• High explanatory power in everyday forgetting (e.g., similar subjects).

Summarise McGeoch & McDonald’s research (1931)

• Aim: To test the effect of similarity on retroactive interference.

• Procedure: Participants learned a word list to 100% accuracy. Then learned a second list that varied in similarity (synonyms, antonyms, unrelated words, nonsense syllables, numbers). Recall of the first list was then tested.

• Findings: Recall was worst when the second list was synonyms (high similarity), and best when the second list was very different.

• Conclusion: Interference is strongest when memories are similar, supporting the idea that competing information causes forgetting.

Summarise Baddeley & Hitch’s rugby study (1977)

• Aim: To test whether forgetting is due to passage of time or interference from similar memories.

• Procedure: Rugby players had to recall the names of teams they had played earlier in the season. The number of games played since each match varied between players.

• Findings: Players were more accurate when they had played fewer matches since, even if the match was a long time ago.

• Conclusion: Forgetting was caused by interference from newer games, not time → strong real-world evidence for interference theory.

Limitations of interference theory?

• Artificial materials (word lists → low ecological validity).

• Effects may be temporary (recall can be “recovered” with cues → interference may not cause permanent forgetting).

• Doesn't explain all forgetting (only accounts for similar material).

Summarise Underwood’s PI research (1957)

• Aim: To investigate proactive interference in learning word lists.

• Procedure: Participants learned several word lists. Recall of the last list was measured.

• Findings: The more lists participants previously learned, the worse their recall of the final list.

• Conclusion: Earlier learning interferes with new learning, supporting proactive interference.