Interference occurs when two pieces of information compete, leading to
forgetting. There are two types: proactive interference (PI), where old
information disrupts new learning, and retroactive interference (RI), where
new information disrupts recall of old memories. One strength of interference
theory is that it is supported by research. McGeoch and McDonald found that
participants who learned a list of words and then a second list with similar
meanings had the worst recall, demonstrating that interference is stronger
when information is similar, proving the existence of PI and RI exist. This
therefore supports the idea that Natasha’s forgetting may have been due to
interference. In Natasha’s case, proactive interference occurred as she
previously learned lines for a GCSE play, and these older memories disrupted
her ability to recall her new A-level lines. This explains why she kept quoting
lines from the wrong play, her old memories interfered with her her new
memories.
Retrieval failure occurs when information is stored in memory but cannot be
accessed due to a lack of cues. Tulving’s encoding specificity principle (ESP)
states that recall is more effective when the cues present at learning match
those present at retrieval. This is because cues are crucial when remembering
specific information as the Long term memory stores an unlimited amount of
memory and cues help to specify what information is needed in that exact
moment. Without the use of cues, it is harder for the brain to pick out the right
information and may fall into interference or going blank. There are two types
of cues: context-dependent cues (external environment) and state-dependent
cues (internal state). One strength of retrieval failure is that it is also supported
by research. Godden and Baddeley found that divers who learned a list of
words underwater recalled them better when tested underwater than on land,
showing that retrieval failure occurs when context cues are missing. A similar
study took place with a state dependent cues. Participants learned the same
word list but half learned it sober while the others learned it on anti-histamine
drugs. The second word list some used th same state while others used
different states. Those in the same state performed better as they had the
same cues. This suggests Natasha’s forgetting may have been due to a
mismatch between her learning and retrieval environments. In Natasha’s
case, she practiced alone in her room but had to recall her lines in a different
context—on stage in front of an audience. The absence of familiar
environmental cues may have led to retrieval failure, making it harder for her
to access the correct lines.
Both interference and retrieval failure can explain Natasha’s forgetting.
Interference explains why she recalled incorrect lines from a different play,
while retrieval failure explains why she struggled to access the correct lines
due to the change in environment. Both theories are supported by research,
but interference may be a stronger explanation since she actively recalled
incorrect information rather than simply being unable to remember.