The influence of word reading on Stroop color naming decreases as a function of the proportion of test items that are incongruent. This proportion-congruent effect is usually ascribed to strategies (e.g., maintaining task set) that operate at a general level to moderate the extent to which participants are influenced by word reading. However, in three experiments, effects at the level of specific items were found. Interference and facilitation were smaller for color names usually presented in an incongruent color than for color names usually presented in their congruent colors. This item-specific proportioncongruent manipulation affected the process dissociation (PD) estimate of the influence of word-reading processes but not that of color-naming processes. The results (1) indicate that item-specific, as opposed to general, mechanisms can reduce the influence of word-reading processes on Stroop performance and (2) demonstrate the PD procedure's utility in studying Stroop phenomena.

No abstract

Recent research suggests that older adults are more susceptible to interference effects than are young adults; however, that research has failed to equate differences in original learning. In 4 experiments, the authors show that older adults are more susceptible to interference effects produced by a misleading prime. Even when original learning was equated, older adults were 10 times as likely to falsely remember misleading information and were much less likely to increase their accuracy by opting not to answer under conditions of free responding. The results are well described by a multinomial model that postulates multiple modes of cognitive control. According to that model, older adults are likely to be captured by misleading information, a form of goal neglect or deficit in inhibitory functions.

Test A-B B. Misinformation effect Experimental Mother-weekend Mother-2 weeks Test Control Mother-weekend Rest Test an interpolated list, during that interval. The advantage in retention performance of the control condition over the experimental condition defines retroactive interference. The standard procedure for such experiments became paired-associate learning with the experimental condition conforming to an A-B, A-D paradigm: Two different responses, B and D, are learned in association to the same stimulus. By McGeochs (1942) response competition theory, retrieval failures occur because some unwanted information is retrieved rather than the sought-after information. In the case of retroactive interference, the response learned in the second list (D) "blocks" retrieval of the first-list response (B). The basic idea is that forgetting results from blockage of retrieval (accessibility) caused by competing information rather than from actual loss of information from memory. Crowder (1976) referred to McGeoch's (1942) theory as an independence hypothesis and contrasted that hypothesis with the unlearning hypothesis that later dominated theorizing about retroactive interference. The independence in question is between the learning of first-and second-list responses in the A-B, A-D paradigm. By McGeochs theory, learning of a second association (A-D) does not influence the association of an earlier response (A-B) but, rather, has its effect on retention performance by providing a competitor for the earlier response. In contrast, the theory of unlearning holds that learning of a second association weakens the earlier association, a dependence hypothesis. The unlearning hypothesis originated from experiments by Melton and Irwin (1940) whose results show that the forgetting of paired associations from a first list could not be fully accounted for by interlist intrusions. Such intrusions, responses from the interpolated list that were mistakenly given in place of the first-list response, would be expected to account for all effects of retroactive interference if forgetting is caused by second-list learning competing with earlier learning. To explain the discrepancy, it was argued that learning of a response to a stimulus in an interpolated list requires unlearning or weakening of the earlier learned response. Retroactive interference was said to reflect both response competition and unlearning.Postman and Underwood (1973) combined the notions of response competition and unlearning by proposing a two-factor theory of forgetting to account for proactive

Probabilistic retroactive interference (RI) refers to the interfering effects of intermixing presentations of an earlier studied response (A-B) with presentations of a competing response (A-D). As an example, for a 2/3 condition, a cue word was presented with its earlier studied response twice and its competing response once during the interference phase. Performance on direct and indirect tests of memory for earlier studied responses was combined to reveal dissociations between effects on recollection and accessibility bias. Manipulating probabilistic RI influenced accessibility bias but left recollection unchanged. Effects of probabilistic RI were compared with effects of traditional, nonprobabilistic RI. The authors contrast their dual-process model with traditional accounts of RI and discuss the importance of distinguishing between recollection and accessibility bias for understanding interference effects.