Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Examining a processing tradeoff explanation of proactive interference

E Hirshman1, D J Burns, T M Kuo

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-3270.

Memory & Cognition
|January 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Comparing Shared Patient Networks Across Payers.

Journal of general internal medicine·2019
Same author

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2013
Same author

Compensator design for improved counterbalancing in high speed atomic force microscopy.

The Review of scientific instruments·2011
Same author

Receptor reporter systems.

Current protocols in pharmacology·2011
Same author

Indirect identification and compensation of lateral scanner resonances in atomic force microscopes.

Nanotechnology·2011
Same author

Photoaffinity detection of cAMP binding proteins in ovarian cancer.

Methods in molecular medicine·2011

Proactive interference in learning is not solely due to processing tradeoffs. Experiments suggest the reverse-interference effect is actually a list-length phenomenon, challenging prior explanations.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human Memory
  • Learning Processes

Background:

  • Proactive interference (PI) in paired-associate learning is often explained by processing tradeoffs between relational and response-specific information.
  • Prior research suggested a 'reverse-interference effect' where recall is better under interference, supporting the tradeoff hypothesis.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the underlying mechanisms of the reverse-interference effect in paired-associate learning.
  • To test whether the reverse-interference effect is correlated with traditional interference effects as predicted by the processing tradeoff theory.
  • To evaluate an alternative hypothesis that the reverse-interference effect is a list-length effect.

Main Methods:

  • Multiple experiments were conducted using paired-associate learning paradigms.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Participants' free recall performance was measured under different interference conditions and list lengths.
  • Statistical analyses were used to examine the correlation between reverse-interference and traditional interference effects, and to compare the explanatory power of the list-length versus tradeoff hypotheses.

    • Main Results:

    • Several experiments yielded results inconsistent with the processing tradeoff prediction that reverse-interference effects should correlate with traditional interference.
    • A final experiment directly contrasted the predictions of the processing tradeoff and list-length explanations.
    • The results of the final experiment provided support for the list-length explanation of the reverse-interference effect.

    Conclusions:

    • The processing tradeoff explanation for proactive interference and the reverse-interference effect is not fully supported by the experimental data.
    • The reverse-interference effect in paired-associate learning appears to be a consequence of list length, not processing tradeoffs.
    • Future research should consider list-length effects when examining interference phenomena in memory.