forgetting because one memory blocks another causing both memories to be distorted or forgotten
1 of 14
why is it an explanation for forgetting LTM
we can get access to the memory even though it is available. inference makes it harder to locate them causing us to forget
2 of 14
two types of interference
proactive and retroactive
3 of 14
proactive interference
older memory interferes with a newer one e.g. remembers so many names in past forgets name of current class
4 of 14
retroactive interference
newer memories interferes with older ones e.g. learnt so many new names she struggles to remember names of past class
5 of 14
degree of forgetting
the degree of forgetting is greater when memories are similar
6 of 14
effects of similarity - procedure
McGeoch and Mcdonald (1931) interference is worse if memories are similar. changed similarities of two materials and asked them to learn one controlled list and one list of another condition.
7 of 14
effects of similarity - findings
when participant recalled original words, performance was depended on the second list. synonyms = worst recall. 3 digit numbers = better recall as not related to list
8 of 14
main evaluation of interference
evidence from lab studies, artificial material, Real life studies, effects may be overcome using cues, time between learning
9 of 14
evaluation of interference - evidence from lab studies
consistently demonstrated increasing validity as controlled
10 of 14
evaluation of interference - artificial materials
greater chance of interference in lab that real life, not externally valid, however relates to birthdays ingredients etc.
11 of 14
evaluation of interference - real life studies
Baddeley and hitch (1977) - rugby players remembering names of teams week by week (some missed games so time was longer). findings: didn't depend on time it depended on games in-between
12 of 14
evaluation of interference - interference effects ay be overcome using cues
Tulving and psotka (1971) - gave participants 5 lists of 24 words each in catagories. catagories were presumed to be obvious. 70% for first list, but fell as given new list, then given cued recall test (told catagories) recall rose to 70%
13 of 14
evaluation of interference - time between learning
lab experiments are designed so possibility of interference is maximised. time periods between learning lists are short yet recalling should be over an hour, doesn't clearly show memory
14 of 14
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
we can get access to the memory even though it is available. inference makes it harder to locate them causing us to forget
Back
why is it an explanation for forgetting LTM
Card 3
Front
proactive and retroactive
Back
Card 4
Front
older memory interferes with a newer one e.g. remembers so many names in past forgets name of current class
Back
Card 5
Front
newer memories interferes with older ones e.g. learnt so many new names she struggles to remember names of past class
Comments
No comments have yet been made