Explanations for forgetting: proactive and retroactive interference and…

The idea

Two very different accounts. Interference says memories compete, and the damage is worst when the material is similar. Proactive means older learning blocks newer; retroactive means newer learning blocks older. McGeoch and McDonald (1931) taught a word list to perfection, then gave a second list, and recall of the first fell to 12.5% when the new words were synonyms against 37.1% when they were numbers, which shows similarity is the active variable. Retrieval failure says the trace is still there but the cue has gone. Encoding specificity predicts that a cue only works if it was present at learning, and Godden and Baddeley (1975) had divers learn and recall on land or underwater, with recall about 40% worse whenever the two settings mismatched. Carter and Cassaday (1998) showed the same for internal state using antihistamines.

What earns the marks

• Interference defined as competition between memories, with the direction stated: proactive is older on newer, retroactive is newer on older.
• An everyday example each way, and similarity named as the condition that makes the effect worse.
• McGeoch and McDonald's synonym condition quoted as evidence that similarity, not merely extra learning, causes the loss.
• Retrieval failure explained as material that is available but not accessible, with encoding specificity and the missing cue.
• Context-dependent forgetting separated from state-dependent forgetting, with Godden and Baddeley and with Carter and Cassaday.
• Evaluation: artificial word lists and short intervals limit generalisation, and interference cannot explain why forgotten material returns once the right cue is given.

Common mistakes and how to put them right

• Reversing the two forms of interference.

  Put it right: 'pro' runs forwards, so the older memory acts forwards onto the newer one.

• Writing that interference destroys the memory, when the studies show a blocked route to it rather than an erased trace.

• Describing the divers study without saying which conditions matched and which did not, so the finding has nothing to attach to.

Exam tips

• If the question names one explanation, the other earns credit only as a comparison inside the evaluation.
• In a scenario, decide first whether a cue is missing or another memory is competing, because everything you write follows from that choice.
• Quote a figure from one study rather than three study names, since a named result is what separates a top band answer.