Explanations for forgetting: Interference

Explanations for forgetting: Interference

1. This occurs when two pieces of information conflict with each other, resulting in forgetting one or both, or in some distortion of memory.

2. Mainly an explanation for forgetting in LTM. Once it has reached LTM it is more or less permanent so forgetting is most likely because we cant get access to the information, even though they are available.

   • Interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, and this is experienced as forgetting.
   • Evidence from lab studies - thousands of lab experiments have been carried out into this explanation e.g. McGeoch and McDonald. Most of these show both types of interference are very likely to be common ways we forget information from LTM. Lab experiments control the effects of irrelevant influences and thus give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation for at least some forgetting.
   • Artificial materials - stimulus materials used in most studies are lists of words which is some distance from the things we learn and try to remember every day e.g. peoples faces, birthdays. this makes interference much more likely in a lab.
   • Real life studies - Baddeley and Hitch found accurate recall from rugby players on who they played did not depend on how long ago the matches took place but the number of games they had played in the meantime. This shows interference explanations can apply to at least some everyday situations.

3. Types of interference

   • Proactive interference - older memory interferes with a newer one
   • Retroactive interference - newer memory interferes with an older one

4. Effects of similarity

   • McGeoch and Mcdonald studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of materials. Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy.
     • They then learned a new list. There were 6 groups of participants who each had to learn different types of lists (shown on graph).
     • Found that when participants had to recall the original list of words, their performance depended on the nature of the second list. The most similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall.

Images and files in the map