Age differences in transfer and retroaction as a function of intertask response similarity.

Gladis, Michael; Braun, Harry W.

doi:10.1037/h0044691

Cited by 41 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The age-related deficit in learning found for the older Ss in the present study is consistent with other studies of adult age differences in verbal learning (e.g., Gladis & Braun, 1958;Hulicka, 1967). However, as Underwood (1964) and Goulet (1972) point out, differences between groups in rate of learning make the interpretation of RI and PI findings less clear.…”

Section: Drscussro~supporting

confidence: 89%

“…In view of the importance of Iearning and retention across the adult life-span, it is surprising that there are so few published studies in this area. Gladis and Braun (1958) reported no age differences in retroactive inhibition (RI) afcer the data were adjusted statistically to account for age differences in learning, whereas Wimer and Wigdor (1958) reported age differences in RI even after their data were adjusted for differences in learning. In a verbal paired-associate retroaction study, Arenberg ( 1967) reporced significant age differences in relearning when the anticipation interval wes 1.9 sec.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retroactive and Proactive Inhibition in Young and Elderly Adults Using an Unpaced Modified Free Recall Test

Traxler

1973

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of interference as an age-related variable in RI and PI as a function of anticipation interval and transfer paradigm was studied by employing different transfer paradigms (A-B, A-C; A-B, C-B; A-B, C-D), and by varying the anticipation interval ( 2 sec. or 4 sec.). 60 young ( M = 27.42 yr.) and 60 elderly adults ( M = 68.73 yr.) learned 2 lists of paired adjectives to an 8/8 criterion and then recallcd the lists by means of a written modified method of free recall. Significant age differences in RI and PI were found, with the old Ss showing disproportionately more RI under the 2-sec. A-B, A-C high interference condition. Neither anticipation interval nor transfer paradigm contributed to age differencts in PI. Results indicated that adult age differences in Ri and PI as measured by the unpaced modified free-recall procedure essentially agree with those in RI acd PI studies using relearning and paced recall tests.One hypothesis underlying the interpretation of studies of adult age differences in learning and retention is the assumption that forgetting increases with age after middle adulthood. The most frequent explanation of this age-related increase in forgetting is chzt the aged are more susceptible to interference from competing habits than heir younger adult counterparts (Goulet, 1972). In view of the importance of Iearning and retention across the adult life-span, it is surprising that there are so few published studies in this area. Gladis and Braun (1958) reported no age differences in retroactive inhibition (RI) afcer the data were adjusted statistically to account for age differences in learning, whereas Wimer and Wigdor (1958) reported age differences in RI even after their data were adjusted for differences in learning. In a verbal paired-associate retroaction study, Arenberg ( 1967) reporced significant age differences in relearning when the anticipation interval wes 1.9 sec. but not when it was 3.7 sec. He also reported that the anticipation interval conuibuted to age differences in proactive inhibition (PI). Thus, it appears that the length of the anticipation interval is one factor contributing to age differences in both RI and PI. Hulicka ( 1967), in a study of learning and retention, found that increases in interference effects with '

show abstract

Section: Drscussro~supporting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Retroactive and Proactive Inhibition in Young and Elderly Adults Using an Unpaced Modified Free Recall Test

Traxler

1973

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of major differences between the learning‐condition groups is due to the fact that S s in all age groups learned the material more rapidly than anticipated. Mean trials to criterion by elderly S s in other studies, e.g., 16 trials for seven nonsense equations (5), 23 trials for eight pairs of letters and words (9), and 21 trials for nine pairs of geometrical symbols and men's names (3), suggested that the majority of older S s in the current study would achieve a very low level of mastery of the 7 pairs of names and faces in 7 trials. However the mean for “trials to criterion” was only slightly over 7 for all age groups (7.69 for the 30–39's; 7.58 for the 60–75's; and 8.52 for the 76–89's).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 40%

Age Differences for Intentional and Incidental Learning and Recall Scores*

Hulicka

1965

J American Geriatrics Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research was designed to investigate the general hypothesis that much of the observed deficit in the recall scores of older persons can be accounted for by inadequate learning. Numerous investigators have demonstrated that both learning and recall scores tend to decline with advanced age. However, since many of the investigations (1, 2) which demonstrated an age-related deficit in recall scores did not incorporate a measure of acquisition, it is impossible to determine whether the lower acores of older people on the recall tests were a function of an age-related deficit in acquisition or retention, or both.I n four recent studies the recall scores of elderly and young subjects (Ss) were compared for material which had been learned to the same criterion of mastery.In two of these studies (3, 4) the recall scores of elderly Ss were not inferior to those of young Ss at 15 or 20 minutes or one week after learning. In the two other studies (5, 6) an age-related deficit in recall scores was apparent twenty-four hours after learning. Hulicka and Rust (5) suggested that part of the recall deficit observed in the latter two studies was specific to the type of experimental task, which in both studies involved the acquisition and retention of nonsense equations, e.g., E X 2 = G and B X D = M. It was observed (5) that during acquisition the younger Ss much more frequently than older Ss, simplified the task by ignoring one of the stimulus letters or by converting the nonsense equations into personally kneaningful symbols. Thus although the experimental task was formally identical for both groups, the younger Ss apparently had less material, and yet material which was more sequentially organized, to learn and retain. Consequently, the observed differences between the two age groups for recall scores may not have reflected a true difference in storage and retrieval. Moreover, Hulicka and Rust (5) reported that the Ss in the two age groups appeared to differ markedly with respect to motivation for engagement in the experimental task. The young Ss seemed to accept the task in a matter-of-fact way, whereas many of the older Ss made remarks which reflected disinterest in, or resentment toward the task. Obviously, if valid comparisons are to be made between age groups for eEciency of learning and recall, it is necessary to select experimental tasks and techniques which are equally appropriate for 8s in the various age groups.In the design of the present study, an attempt was made to select tasks and experimental techniques which would not bias the results in favor of any one age group. Previous research (7) had indicated that Ss in several age groups appeared

show abstract

“…There appears little doubt that performance on learning tasks is impaired with advancing age (10, 18, 20, 25), and that this impairment increases in patients with senile disorders (26–30). However, the age‐related decrease in learning ability declines differentially, depending upon the nature of the material to be learned (31) as well as the degree of intentionality (18, 32).…”

Section: Learning and Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Short‐term Memory and Age

Kriauciunas¹

1968

J American Geriatrics Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age differences in transfer and retroaction as a function of intertask response similarity.

Cited by 41 publications

References 9 publications

Retroactive and Proactive Inhibition in Young and Elderly Adults Using an Unpaced Modified Free Recall Test

Retroactive and Proactive Inhibition in Young and Elderly Adults Using an Unpaced Modified Free Recall Test

Age Differences for Intentional and Incidental Learning and Recall Scores*

Short‐term Memory and Age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About