Explanations for Forgetting: Interference

EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE

Description​​​​​​

Retroactive interference - old interferes with new.

Proactive interference - new interferes with old

- Muller and Pilzecker found recall was less good if there was an intervening task, like describing paintings

- Underwood analysed many studies and found the more lists that had to be learned, the lower the percentage of recall

- McGeoch and McDonald found that learning a list of words and a list of synonyms had a 12% recall, whereas a list of words with digits had 37% recall. This proves that similarity matters.

- Baddeley and Hitch found rugby players who played fewer games had better recall of teams they played against, due to less interference

Evaluation

- Artificial research as words and nonsense syllables means less motivation, therefore it doesn't represent everyday memory

- It's limited to some situations of forgetting, where 2 sets of stimuli are quite similar

- Ceraso found spontaneous recovery of recognition memory after interference will suggest that memories are available, but just aren't accessible

Further Evaluation

- Real-world application. Competing advertisements reduce their effect because of interference, so it would be better to show 3 in a single day.

- Individual differences means people with greater working memory span are less susceptible to proactive interference, according to Kane and Eagle.