Abstract
Prior research has generally shown that the greater the degree of original learning of a list, the greater the amount of retroactive interference that list suffers. In addition, greater learning of interpolated lists produces more retroactive interference. However, in prior research, the degree of learning has typically been confounded with the amount of retrieval practice on the list. Two free-recall experiments are reported in which subjects studied one original list and then 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 interpolated lists. The degree of original and of interpolated learning was manipulated by varying exposure time. In Experiment 1, where the typical confounding of retrieval practice and degree of interpolated learning was present, greater interpolated learning induced greater retroactive interference, which is consistent with prior research. However, in Experiment 2, where the degree of interpolated learning was manipulated without concomitant variation in retrieval practice, retroactive interference was the same, whether the interpolated lists had been learned well or poorly. Therefore, greater interpolated learning does not increase the amount of retroactive interference. The results also show that the amount of retroactive interference does not depend on the degree of original learning, in agreement with other work on normal forgetting.
Article PDF
References
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., &Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1063–1087.
Anderson, M. C., &Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case.Psychological Review,102, 68–100.
Barnes, J. M., &Underwood, B. J. (1959). “Fate” of first-list associations in transfer theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 95–105.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1986). The statistical analysis of a model for storage and retrieval processes in human memory.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,39, 129–149.
Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology,80, 1–46.
Bäuml, K.-H. (1991). Experimental analysis of storage and retrieval processes involved in retroactive inhibition: The effect of presentation mode.Acta Psychologica,77, 103–119.
Bäuml, K.-H. (in press). A Markov model for measuring storage loss and retrieval failure in retroactive inhibition.Acta Psychologica
Briggs, G. E. (1957). Retroactive inhibition as a function of the degree of original and interpolated learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 60–67.
DaPolito, F. J. (1966).Proactive effects with independent retrieval of competing responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Estes, W. K. (1988). Human learning and memory. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.),Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 351–415). New York: Wiley.
Loftus, G. R. (1985). Evaluating forgetting curves.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 397–406.
Mensink, J.-G., &Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1988). A model of interference and forgetting.Psychological Review,95, 434–455.
Postman, L., &Riley, D. A. (1959). Degree of learning and interserial interference in retention: A review of the literature and an experimental analysis.University of California Publications in Psychology,8, 271–396.
Ratcliff, R., Clark, S. E., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1990). The list-strength effect: 1. Data and discussion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 163–178.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes.Psychological Review,95, 318–339.
Roediger, H. L., III (1974). Inhibiting effects of recall.Memory & Cognition,2, 261–269.
Roediger, H. L., III (1978). Recall as a self-limiting process.Memory & Cognition,6, 54–63.
Rundus, D. (1973). Negative effects of using list items as recall cues.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 43–50.
Scheithe, K., &Bäuml, K.-H. (1995). Deutschsprachige Normen für Vertreter von 48 Kategorien [German normative data for representatives of 48 categories].Sprache & Kognition,14, 39–43.
Slamecka, N. J. (1960). Retroactive inhibition of connected discourse as a function of practice level.Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 104–108.
Slamecka, N. J. (1985). On comparing rates of forgetting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 812–816.
Slamecka, N. J., &McElree, B. (1983). Normal forgetting of verbal lists as a function of their degree of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 384–397.
Smith, A. D. (1971). Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 400–408.
Tulving, E., &Psotka, J. (1971). Retroactive inhibition in free recall: Inaccessibility of information available in the memory store.Journal of Experimental Psychology,87, 1–8.
Wickelgren, W. A. (1977).Learning and memory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author thanks M. Anderson, D. Macaulay, H. L. Roediger III, and one anonymous referee for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bäuml, Kh. Revisiting an old issue: Retroactive interference as a function of the degree of original and interpolated learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3, 380–384 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210765
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210765