Scribd
Upload
169 views

Interference Theory of Forgetting

The document outlines interference theory as an explanation for forgetting in long-term memory. It describes two types of interference - proactive, where old information interferes with new learning, and retroactive, where new information interferes with old memories. Research evidence is presented showing retroactive interference can impair recall. However, the theory is limited as it relies on artificial experiments and may not fully explain permanent forgetting. Supporting evidence also shows increased interference between similar information.

Uploaded by

Nahima
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
169 views

Interference Theory of Forgetting

The document outlines interference theory as an explanation for forgetting in long-term memory. It describes two types of interference - proactive, where old information interferes with new learning, and retroactive, where new information interferes with old memories. Research evidence is presented showing retroactive interference can impair recall. However, the theory is limited as it relies on artificial experiments and may not fully explain permanent forgetting. Supporting evidence also shows increased interference between similar information.

Uploaded by

Nahima
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

‘Describe and evaluate interference as an

explanation of forgetting’ (12 marks)


AO1 - Outline the theory/explanation/research/approach
● Forgetting within the long term memory (LTM) occurs when memories
become confused.
● Interference happens when one set of information competes with another set
of information, thus causing it to be ‘overwritten’ or physically destroyed.
● Two types of interference:
○ Proactive Interference
○ Retroactive Interference

Proactive Interference
● Proactive interference is when old information (past information) affects the
learning and retention of new information.
○ For example, you may find it difficult to remember your friend’s new
mobile number after having previously learned the old number.

Retroactive Interference
● Retroactive interference is when new information (recent information) affects
the retention of old information.
○ For example, when moving houses and changing addresses, you will
soon find that the new address replaces the old as you will not be able
to remember your old address.

Effect of similarity
● When two sets of information are similar in meaning, interference is more
likely to occur
○ NOTE: Similar in meaning, not similar in sound - LTM encodes
information semantically (through meaning).
■ For example, if we are told to remember a list containing the
words ‘big’, ‘huge’ and ‘large’, interference is more likely to
occur if this list is followed by a list of words with the
same/similar meaning, such as ‘enormous’, ‘giant’ and
‘colossal’.

AO1 Example - Postman (1960) - Provides evidence of RETROACTIVE


INTERFERENCE
● Method:
○ Two groups of participants had to learn a list of paired words, such as
cat-moss, jelly-tree etc.
○ The experimental group had to learn another list of words, where the
second paired word was different, such as cat-glass, jelly-time etc.
○ The control group (2nd group of participants) were not given the
second list.
○ Both groups had to recall the paired words from the first list.

● Findings:
○ In the control group, the recall of the first list was higher than that of the
experimental group.

● Conclusion:
○ Findings demonstrated that retroactive interference occurred for the
experimental group - new information (the second list of paired words)
affected the retention of old information (first list of paired words).
○ As a result of retroactive interference, it led to the experimental group
experiencing poorer recall of the first list of paired words than the
control group.

AO3 - Evaluation (1)

P - A strength of the interference theory of forgetting is that it has practical


applications

E - There has been a lot of research into the effects of interference when people are
exposed to adverts from competing brands within a short period of time. For
example, Danaher et al (2008) found that both recall and recognition of an
advertisement’s message was impaired when participants were exposed to two
adverts for competing brands within a week.

As a result, Danaher et al suggest that to improve memory for the message,


competing brands should advertise repeatedly and run multiple exposures to
advertisements in one day as it makes memory more resistant to interference
compared to spreading out adverts over the week.

E- This is a strength because it shows how, by understanding interference, forgetting


in real life environments can be prevented.

L - Therefore, this shows how psychological research into interference can be used
in the real world, thus increasing the usefulness of interference as an explanation of
forgetting.

AO3 - Evaluation (2)


P - A weakness of the interference theory of forgetting is that the supporting
evidence it relies upon are derived from artificial laboratory experiments.

E - In fact, much of the research evidence for the interference theory has come from
artificial lab experiments. Interference requires special conditions, for example
word-pair stimuli are generated for the purpose of the experiment. These
conditions are very rare in day-to-day life, thus resulting in the research to appear to
have little relevance to everyday situations.

E - As a result of this, the research conducted lacks ecological validity and can be
questioned if interference only accounts for a very specific and limited range of
instances of forgetting in LTM.

L - Therefore, since the evidence that supports the interference theory can be
considered invalid, as it lacks ecological validity, this limits the validity of the
interference theory too.

AO3 - Evaluation (3)


P - Another weakness of the interference theory of forgetting is that it is an
incomplete explanation of forgetting.

E - The effects of interference may actually be temporary rather than a permanent


form of forgetting. For example, Ceraso (1967) found that if memory was tested
again 24 hours later, recognition showed considerable spontaneous recovery,
as participants were now able to recognise words that they seemed to have
forgotten.

E - This suggests that interference occurs because memories are temporarily


not accessible rather than actually being lost. Therefore, interference is not a
complete explanation of forgetting as it struggles to explain how memories can be
lost permanently.

L - This ultimately reduces the validity of interference as an explanation of forgetting.

AO3 - Evaluation (4)


P - A strength of the Interference Theory is that there is supporting evidence for the
effects of similarity in interference.

E - McGeoch and McDonald (1931) had different groups of ppts learn two lists of
words. For one group of ppts, the second list consisted of synonyms of the first list
whereas for the other group, the second list consisted of nonsense syllables (e.g
GVX, HRE).
They found that recall of the first list was higher in the group where the second list
consisted of nonsense syllables (26%) compared to the group where the second list
consisted of synonyms of the first list (12%).

E - This is a strength as it supports the idea that if two sets of information are similar,
interference is more likely to occur.

L - This increases the validity of the theory

You might also like