✏️Explanations for forgetting: Interference
The interference theory is when two pieces of information disrupt each other. This occurs in the
long-term memory because we can't get access to them even when they are available. The two
types of interference are proactive interference and retroactive interference. Proactive interference
is when an older memory disrupts a newer one. For example, a teacher has learned lots of names in
the past and so she can't remember the names of her current class. Retroactive interference is when
a newer memory disrupts an older one. For example, a teacher has learned many names this year
and so she can't remember the names of her past students. Interference is worse when the
memories are similar. This could be because of two reasons. In proactive interference, the stored
information makes new information harder to store. In retroactive interference, the new
information overwrites the previous memories which are similar.
In a study by McGeoch and McDonald, participants were asked to learn a list of words until they
could recall them all perfectly. Then they were given a new list of words to learn. There were 6
groups, and each had a different scenario. Group 1 was given synonyms, words that had the same
meanings as the originals. Group 2 were given antonyms, words that have opposite meanings to the
originals. Group 3 were given unrelated words to the originals. Group 4 were given consonant
syllables. Group 5 were given three-digit numbers. Group 6 were not given a list, they were just
asked to rest, which was the control group. The participants were then asked to recall the original
list. The performance of the participants depends on the second list they were given. The group who
were given synonyms had the worst recall, and the people who just rested had the best recall. This
means that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
A strength of the study is that there is support for real-world applications. Two researchers asked
rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against in the past season. The
players who had injuries and therefore had played fewer games had the best recall, while those who
had played every single game had the worst recall. This shows that interference operates in some
everyday situations.
However, a counterpoint is that interference in everyday life happens rarely, because having similar
memories of the same event is not something that happens often. This means that everyday
forgetting might be better explained by retrieval failure.
A limitation is that interference effects might be overcome using cues. Two researchers gave
participants a list of words organised into categories but did not tell the participants what the
categories were. The participants were given the list and asked to recall it, and then kept being given
new lists. The first list had 70% recall, but the recall rate fell with each new list, which shows
proactive interference. When the participants were given the names of the categories, recall rose to
70% again. This shows that interference causes temporary loss of access to the material which is still
in the long-term memory.
Another strength is support from drug studies. Participants who recalled information before taking
diazepam recalled information better one week later than those who took a placebo. The drug
stopped new information from reaching the areas of the brain that process memories. Therefore
retroactive interference could not happen. This shows that forgetting is due to interference and
reducing the interference can reduce the amount of forgetting.
The interference theory is when two pieces of information disrupt each other. This occurs in the
long-term memory because we can't get access to them even when they are available. The two
types of interference are proactive interference and retroactive interference. Proactive interference
is when an older memory disrupts a newer one. For example, a teacher has learned lots of names in
the past and so she can't remember the names of her current class. Retroactive interference is when
a newer memory disrupts an older one. For example, a teacher has learned many names this year
and so she can't remember the names of her past students. Interference is worse when the
memories are similar. This could be because of two reasons. In proactive interference, the stored
information makes new information harder to store. In retroactive interference, the new
information overwrites the previous memories which are similar.
In a study by McGeoch and McDonald, participants were asked to learn a list of words until they
could recall them all perfectly. Then they were given a new list of words to learn. There were 6
groups, and each had a different scenario. Group 1 was given synonyms, words that had the same
meanings as the originals. Group 2 were given antonyms, words that have opposite meanings to the
originals. Group 3 were given unrelated words to the originals. Group 4 were given consonant
syllables. Group 5 were given three-digit numbers. Group 6 were not given a list, they were just
asked to rest, which was the control group. The participants were then asked to recall the original
list. The performance of the participants depends on the second list they were given. The group who
were given synonyms had the worst recall, and the people who just rested had the best recall. This
means that interference is strongest when the memories are similar.
A strength of the study is that there is support for real-world applications. Two researchers asked
rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against in the past season. The
players who had injuries and therefore had played fewer games had the best recall, while those who
had played every single game had the worst recall. This shows that interference operates in some
everyday situations.
However, a counterpoint is that interference in everyday life happens rarely, because having similar
memories of the same event is not something that happens often. This means that everyday
forgetting might be better explained by retrieval failure.
A limitation is that interference effects might be overcome using cues. Two researchers gave
participants a list of words organised into categories but did not tell the participants what the
categories were. The participants were given the list and asked to recall it, and then kept being given
new lists. The first list had 70% recall, but the recall rate fell with each new list, which shows
proactive interference. When the participants were given the names of the categories, recall rose to
70% again. This shows that interference causes temporary loss of access to the material which is still
in the long-term memory.
Another strength is support from drug studies. Participants who recalled information before taking
diazepam recalled information better one week later than those who took a placebo. The drug
stopped new information from reaching the areas of the brain that process memories. Therefore
retroactive interference could not happen. This shows that forgetting is due to interference and
reducing the interference can reduce the amount of forgetting.
