We assessed the extent to which implicit proactive interference results from automatic versus controlled retrieval among younger and older adults. During a study phase, targets (e.g., "ALLERGY") either were or were not preceded by nontarget competitors (e.g., "ANALOGY"). After a filled interval, the participants were asked to complete word fragments, some of which cued studied words (e.g., "A_L_ _GY"). Retrieval strategies were identified by the difference in response speed between a phase containing fragments that cued only new words and a phase that included a mix of fragments cuing old and new words. Previous results were replicated: Proactive interference was found in implicit memory, and the negative effects were greater for older than for younger adults. Novel findings demonstrate two retrieval processes that contribute to interference: an automatic one that is age invariant and a controlled process that can reduce the magnitude of the automatic interference effects. The controlled process, however, is used effectively only by younger adults. This pattern of findings potentially explains age differences in susceptibility to proactive interference.

We assessed age differences in interference effects in priming by using fragment completion. In Experiment 1, noninterfering filler words preceded critical targets at study, and priming was age invariant. In Experiment 2, the same target items had interfering competitors at the beginning of the list, such that both the target and the competitor were legitimate solutions to a fragment. Having two responses to a cue was disruptive for older adults, but not for younger adults. Younger and older adults differ in their susceptibility to interference in implicit tasks, and interference may play a role in influencing the magnitude of age differences in priming.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that twins may dispute ownership of autobiographical experiences. We investigated the frequency and characteristics of such disputed memories in comparison to memories with undisputed ownership. In the present study, monozygotic twins (MZ), dizygotic twins (DZ), and siblings were asked to remember disputed and non-disputed memories. They also dated each memory and provided a rating on the following variables: level of imagery, detail, rehearsal, and importance. Results showed that disputed memories were more common among MZ twins than in DZ twins and siblings. The frequencies of undisputed memories were not different among the three groups. When compared to non-disputed memories, disputed memories were more likely to come from events experienced during preschool years. We consider disputed memories as instances of false memories, at least partly influenced by social interactional processes, and event characteristics.One of the important issues in autobiographical memory research has been the accuracy of the reported past experiences. The general conclusion from this line of research is that people are quite accurate regarding their autobiographical experiences. For instance, Barclay and Wellman (1986) asked college students to record information (context, description, date) about three autobiographical events every day for four months. Then, after four different time intervals ranging from one month to one year, they gave participants a recognition test in which participants indicated which of the described events they actually experienced. The list of events included real events (taken from participants' own records) as well as distractor descriptions. The foil descriptions included either a revised description of an event that was actually recorded by the participants themselves or an event taken from another student's record who did not participate in the study. Correct recognition of events they have actually experienced was above 90% regardless of the retention interval. This high level of accuracy does not seem to be limited to recollections of the relatively recent past. Studies show that young adults are able to accurately remember certain experiences from their childhood. For instance, Howes et al.

Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author's name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pagination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.

No abstract