the effects of proactive interference in memory span performance
DESCRIPTION
The present study examined the role of proactive interference in memory span. The experiment was a between group study where both groups were given a memory span test and one group experienced a proactive interference condition (two lists of words that were in the same category of the words shown in the memory span test). The primary hypothesis was that the group with proactive interference would perform poorly in comparison to the opposing group. An independent t-test revealed that the interference manipulation provided no significance between the two groups.TRANSCRIPT
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
By: Paulo Davila
Subject: Final Paper
Professor: Dr. Vaden
2
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
Abstract
The present study examined the role of proactive interference in memory span.
The experiment was a between group study where both groups were given a memory
span test and one group experienced a proactive interference condition (two lists of words
that were in the same category of the words shown in the memory span test). The primary
hypothesis was that the group with proactive interference would perform poorly in
comparison to the opposing group. An independent t-test revealed that the interference
manipulation provided no significance between the two groups.
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
Proactive interference is when prior knowledge of a subject interferes with the
learning and recall of new incoming information (Wahlheim, 2012). An example of
proactive interference can be seen when a person is asked to recite their phone number
after they have obtained a new phone number that replaces the old one. When asked to
recite their phone number, the person recites their old number instead of the new number.
The person has already memorized their old number and also recited the old number a
numerous amount of times, which is causing interference recalling and learning their new
phone number. This example was one of numerous ways proactive interference effects
memory span. The amount of exposure to proactive interference is an important factor
that affects memory span (Knight and Gray, 1967). The effects of proactive interference
have been extensively studied along with other variables, such as age and language. The
purpose of this study is to observe the memory span performance of participants who
were subjected to proactive interference versus participants who have not been subjected
to proactive interference.
Proactive interference and its effects have been studied thoroughly, especially
with age differences. Studies suggest that older adults, usually refering to adults between
the ages of 60 to 75, are much more negatively impacted by proactive interference in
comparison to young adults, usually refering to adults between the ages 18 to 25 (Bowles,
2007;Emery, Hale, Myerson, 2008; Zeintl, Kliegel, 2010). A study by Kane, Hasher, and
May (1999) was performed to see if proactive interference affects people of different
ages differently. The participants were separated into two groups (young adults and older
4
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
adults). The ages of young adults were 18 to 21 and the ages for older adults were 60 to
75. During the experiment, both groups were asked to take a series of memory span tests.
After the experiment was done, the results showed that the memory span test score for the
older adult group were lower than the young adult group. This study shows that older
adults are much more susceptible to proactive interference than younger adults.
Ikier, Hasher, and Yang (2008) performed the second study on the correlation
between age and proactive interference .The study was performed to see if implicit
memory shows interference in memory span and whether the effect is greater in older
participants. The study had two groups of participants (young adults and old adults). The
age for young adults was 18 to 27 years old and the older adults were from ages 59 to 75
years old. The participants were given a series of words with a target word, such as
ALLERGY, that was followed by a non-target word, such as ANALOGY. After the list
was presented, the participants were given word fragments, such as A_L__GY, and asked
to fill in the blanks. The results were that older adults experience larger negative effects
from proactive interference in comparison to younger adults.
Along with studying the impact of proactive interference on memory span, a
study has also been conducted to observe how the effects of proactive interference can be
reduced. A study conducted by Jacoby, Wahlheim, Rhodes, Daniels & Rogers (2010)
observed how a prior exposure to proactive interference reduces the effects of future
proactive interference. The procedure to this experiment was to administer two rounds of
memory span tasks to participants. The two rounds involved a memory span task with
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
proactive interference and the participants were given feedback on whether they chose
the wrong series of words. The first round showed that participants suffered from false
memory due to the proactive interference. False memory is the recollection of non-
existing events when trying to retrieve a certain memory (Roediger &McDermott, 1995).
The results for the second round showed that scores improved due to the fact the
participants were aware of the interference. Another study by Lacher and Goggin (1969)
showed that making a change in word length could reduce proactive interference. The
experiment consisted of eleven memory span trials that manipulated word length. The
first four trials were words of the same length while the following three trials consisted of
a different word length. The last four trials were a variation of different word lengths.
The results showed that word length determined the impact of proactive interference.
Another method of reducing proactive interference was observed by Underwood
and Ekstrand (1965). The experiment consisted of two pairs of word lists (A-B, A-C).
The participants were divided into two groups where one half of the participants did a
mass study of the words in one day and the other half were told to study the list in a four
day distribution. Once the studying has been done, the participants were given a memory
span test on the second pair of word list (A-C). The results showed that proactive
interference had greater impact on the group who mass studied the list within a day in
comparison to the group who studied in a four-day distribution.
A second study by Caretti, Mammarella, Borella (2012) was performed to observe
the benefit of reducing proactive interference between three age groups. This specific
study aimed for a larger amount of sample groups in comparison to older studies. The
participants were broken down into three groups young adults (ages 25 to 30), young-old
6
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
adults (ages 65 to 75) , and old-old adults (ages greater than 75). The memory span given
was a list of words in ascending and then descending order of list length. The results from
this experiment showed that young adults had no benefit in proactive interference
reduction but the young-old adults and old-old adults did benefit.
The importance and relevance of PI can be seen outside of traditional memory
span test in context such as video games. According to Karle, Watter, Sheddon (2009),
video gamers use selective attention during gameplay but they are still vulnerable to
proactive interference. The participants in this study were categorized into two groups,
expert video game players (VGP) and no expert video game players (nVGP). The trials
consisted of task switching with minimal to no PI and no PI during task switching. The
VGPs displayed advanced proficiency during the no interference trials, where as nVGPs
showed poor performance. When both groups were introduced with PI during task switch
trials, both performed poorly. This study establishes that PI can still present itself
negatively in experienced SMEs.
A study was done by Nikolova (2008) to observe if bilinguals are less effect by
proactive interference than monolinguals. Nickolova hypothesized that bilinguals will be
less affected by proactive interference due to their constant exposure to two languages.
The two groups were administered a short-term memory task using words along with
proactive interference. The results show that bilingual participants were less affected by
proactive interference in comparison to monolingual participants. The experimenter
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
concluded that bilingual participants were much more efficient on removing non-relevant
information from working memory.
A study was done to observe the impact of proactive interference between
bilingual and monolingual participants by Bialystok and Feng (2009). The participants
were broken down into two groups of bilinguals and monolinguals. Within each group
there was a two more sub groups of adults and children. All groups were given a memory
span task that consisted of vocabulary words and then they were given the same task with
proactive interference. In the standard vocabulary memory span bilinguals did poorly in
comparison to monolinguals. During the vocabulary memory span task all groups were
given feed back about the errors they have committed. In the proactive interference
memory span task, both bilinguals and monolinguals performed the same. The results
show that the bilingual children recalled the same number of words during the proactive
interference as the non-proactive interference task. The bilingual adults were not as
affected by proactive interference as the monolinguals. The experimenter explains that
the reason bilingual adults were not as affected was due to the fact that bilingual adults
have to compensate for weaker language proficiency with greater of control of working
memory.
The purpose of this study was to observe the impact proactive interference has
memory span. Studies have shown the importance of proactive interference during
memory span tasks (Knight and Gray, 1967). We hypothesized that the group exposed to
proactive interference will perform poorly during a memory span task in comparison to
the group who has not been exposed to proactive interference.
8
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
Methods
Participants
Participants were recruited in the two following ways: class participation and
random selection. A small presentation was given in psychology classes at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University about the experiment in order to recruit volunteers. In certain
classes professors allowed the participants to receive extra credit for participating.
During the random recruitment, randomly selected individuals were recruited at Embry-
Riddle Aeronautical University‘s library. The only requirement the participants had to
meet was to be currently enrolled in class at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Before proceeding with the experiment, a laboratory setting was chosen in order
to eliminate any external distractions. The participants were then broken into two groups
of ten and escorted to the appropriate rooms. Both groups were given a full verbal and
written explanation of the experiment procedures and a written form of consent with the
option to withdraw from the experiment at any given time. In order to eliminate any bias
the participants were assigned numbers that they used to register their data.
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
Instruments
The instrument used to administer the exam and retain participant data was
Wads worth Cog Lab version 1.0. The software SPSS, a statistical analysis program, was
used when analyzing data. Each participant was provided with his or her own individual
computer.
Procedure
For Group A, the participants were asked to register into the program using their
assigned numbers. Once they logged in they began to take the memory span test. The
memory span test involved a sequence of items appearing on the left portion of the
window. Each was flashed for exactly one second. After the sequence of items came to
an end, a nine choice word-button bank will appear on the right side of the window. The
word bank contained all the items from the original sequence and distractors. The
participants were asked to click on the items of the sequence in the order that they were
presented. Once the first trial was, finished the participants were told to continue
completing all 25 trials by clicking on the ‘Next Trial’ button. While the participants
were shown the sequence of items they were not allowed to use any help (such as pen and
paper) to recall these items.
The memory span test involved five trials for five different types of stimuli. The
stimuli are numbers, letters that sound different, letters that sound the same, short words,
and long words. Each trial had different sequence lengths, three to nine items shown
within one-second intervals, and each trial was presented randomly. Providing a correct
response to the trial involved recalling all items of the sequence in the order shown. The
participants were informed that there was no way to correct any mistakes. After every
10
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
trial they were presented with feedback about their response but just showing either
“Correct” or “Incorrect”. If the participant was correct the list of items will be one item
longer but if they are incorrect they will be one item shorter.
For Group B, the proactive interference during a memory span task was
manipulated. Prior to the actual test, Group B received a study sheet with a list of short
words and long words. The list was composed of words that were either in the same
category of the items provided in the test or synonyms. The study sheet provided short
and long words due to the fact that only short words and long words data was to be
analyzed. The participants of Group B were asked to study the list by rewriting every
word of the list three times. The maximum allowed study time was five minutes. After
being able to study the sheet, the participants took the same exact test as Group A and
followed the same instructions for the memory span test.
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
Results
The mean list length recalled for the proactive interference group was
5.75(SD=1.03) for long words. The mean list length for the non-proactive interference
group was 4(SD=1.06) for short words and 4(1.06) for long words. Based on the
independent sample t-test, there was no significant difference in short word list length
between the non-proactive interference group and the proactive interference in list length,
t(14)=3.26, p=0.506. Based on the independent sample t-test, there was no significant
difference in long word list length between the non-proactive interference group and the
proactive interference in list length, t(14)=3.86, p=0.298.
Discussion
The present experiment observed the impact of proactive interference on memory
span performance. The expected outcome was that there should be a significant
difference between the non-proactive interference group and the proactive interference
12
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
group. Results obtained from the study suggests that the effect of proactive interference
was not significant. Proactive interference should have resulted in a difference between
the two groups according to a study performed by Kane, Hasher, and May (1999), where
a significant effect of proactive interference in memory span was reported.
Differences between the present study and Kane, Hasher, and May can be seen in
the differences between the sample groups, where age was not a factor being evaluated in
the present study. An alternative explanation may result from the method of study within
the proactive interference group. During the experiment the proactive interference group
had three to five minutes to study two lists of words before proceeding to the memory
span test. The method of studying the list of words was left to the participants’ own
discretion. Participants may have avoided the actual studying portion of the experiment
or they may have had chosen an ineffective study method. A third explanation is the
experimenter’s poor choice of a proactive interference method. The proactive
interference method might have been too deviated from the actual memory span task,
where instead of studying the list of words participants should have performed a memory
span test with a different set of instructions (i.e., The participants should have eliminated
the words that weren’t present in the list from the choice box rather than recalling the
words shown) prior to the original memory span test.
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
References
Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2009). Language proficiency and executive
control in proactive interference: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual
children and adults. Brain and Language, 109(2-3), 93- 100.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.09.001
Blalock, L. D., & McCabe, D. P. (2011). Proactive interference and practice
effects in visuospatial working memory span task performance. Memory, 19(1),
83-91. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.537035
Bowles, R. P.(2007) Item response models for intratask change to examine the impacts
of proactive interference on the aging of working memory span. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, , 5461-
14
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
5461. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docvie w/622019353?
accountid=27203
Carretti, B., Mammarella, I., & Borella, E. (2012). Age differences in proactive
interference in verbal and visuospatial working memory. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 243-255.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.603695
Emery, L., Hale, S., & Myerson, J. (2008). Age differences in proactive interference,
working memory, and abstract reasoning. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 634.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docvie w/215843943?
accountid=27203
Ikier, S., Hasher, L., & Yang, L. (2008). Implicit proactive interference, age, and
automatic versus controlled retrieval strategies. (Master's thesis, Yeditepe
University, Instanbul,Turkey)Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/755648416/13
ACBB0068F7836DE92/1?accountid=27203
Jacoby, L. L., & Wahlheim, C. M. (2012). Learning to diminish the effects of proactive
interference: Reducing false memory for young and older adults. Manuscript
submitted for publication, Washington University, , Available from NIHPA.
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span Performance
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030918/?
report=abstract
Kane, M. J., Hasher, L., & May, C. P. (1999). The role of interference in memory span.
(Master's thesis)Retrieved from
http://ejournals.ebsco.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/direct.asp?
ArticleID=4CDF95672E6104094C63
Karle, J. W., Watter, S., & Shedden, J. M. (2009). Task switching in video game players:
Benefits of selective attention but not resistance to proactive interference.
(Master's thesis, McMaster University)Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/science/article/pii/
S0001691809001875
KNIGHT, J., & GRAY, J. A. (1967). Degree of learning, proactive interference
and retention. Nature, 216(5113), 406-407.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/216406a0
Lachar, B., & Goggin, J. P. (1969). Effects of changes in word length on proactive
interference in short-term memory Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docvie w/86554676?
accountid=27203
Nikolova, A. G.(2008) Bilingualism, inhibition, and executive processing: Evidence from
stroop color naming, proactive interference, task-switching, and working
memory. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, , 4859-4859. Retrieved from
16
Running head: The Effects of Proactive Interference in Memory Span
Performance
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docvie w/621716234?
accountid=27203
Roediger,H.L., McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words
not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition,21(4),803-814.
Wahlheim, C.(2012)Age differences in proactive interference and facilitation: The role
of remindings. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, , 6410-6410. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/102114289
6?accounti d=27203
Zeintl, M., & Kliegel, M. (2010). Proactive and coactive interference in age-related
performance in a recognition-based operation span task. Gerontology, 56(4),
421-429. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000237875