Temporal changes in interference

Postman, Leo; Stark, Karen; Fraser, Janat

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(68)80124-0

Cited by 265 publications

(205 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the more items associated with a cue that are retrieved, the more impaired those related items will be. Third, the impairment does not depend on the strength of the retrieved item but only on its successful recall (Anderson et a\., 1994;Roediger & Neely, 1982; see also Postman, Stark, & Fraser, 1968). If the strong items from a mixed list are retrieved earlier than the weak items (Anderson et a\., 1994), suppression predicts that recall performance of strong items should be higher from mixed lists than from pure strong lists; in fact, the retrieval of items in the first testing positions should inhibit retrieval of the still-to-be-remembered items, yielding lower performance on average in pure strong lists than in the mixed lists.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The list-strength effect: Strength-dependent competition or suppression?

Bäuml

1997

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If several items are associated with a common cue, the cued recall of an item is often supposed to decrease as a function of the increase in strength of its competitors' associations with the cue. Evidence for such a list-strength effect has been found in prior research, but this effect could have been caused both by the strength manipulations and by retrieval-based suppression, because the strengthening and the output order ofthe items were confounded. The experiment reported here employed categorizable item lists; some categories in each list contained strong items only,some contained weak items only, and some contained both strong and weak items. Strengthening was accomplished by varying the exposure time of the items. The testing sequence of the items from each category was controlled by the use of category-plus-first-letter cues. When the typical confounding of strengthening and output order was mimicked,list-strength effects were found, which is consistent with prior research. However, when this confounding was eliminated, the list-strength effects disappeared: The recall of neither strong nor weak items varied with the strengths of the other category exemplars. This pattern of results indicates that the list-strength effect is not the result of strength-dependent competition, but is caused by output-order biases and a process of suppression.The cued recall ofan item decreases as the number of items associated with the same cue increases. Corresponding evidence has been provided by a number of studies in quite different experimental paradigms (see Watkins, 1978, for a review). This finding is generally seen as support for the assumption that memories associated with a common cue compete for access to conscious recall when that cue is presented.Often, this competition is assumed to be strength dependent; that is, the cued recall of an item is supposed to decrease as a function of the increase in strength of its competitors' associations with the cue. Evidence for this strength dependence arises particularly from studies on retroactive and proactive interference (Barnes & Underwood, 1959;Briggs, 1957), although the results from studies on part-set cuing have been interpreted similarly (Roediger, 1974;Rundus, 1973). This evidence for strength dependence appears to be so compelling that the concept has been incorporated as a fundamental property into many memory models (Mensink & Raaijmakers, 1988;Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981;Rundus, 1973).The concept of strength dependence, however, is far less well empirically established than it would seem. Recently, Anderson, Bjork, and Bjork (1994) emphasized this point by arguing that previous interference studies, which seemingly provide evidence for strength dependence, confounded the manipulation of the strengths of Thanks are extended to M. Anderson, A. Glenberg, H. L. Roediger III. and one anonymous referee for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. The author's address is Institut fur Psychologie, Universitat Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany (e...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The list-strength effect: Strength-dependent competition or suppression?

Bäuml

1997

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We explained these probe-delay effects (Wright, Santiago, Sands, It Urcuioli, in press) as a dual process of recovery from retroactive interference (cf. Postman, Stark, It Fraser, 1968) and loss of a short-term memory storage (cf. Waugh It Norman, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of the primacy effect in memory processing: A reply to Gaffan

Wright

Santiago

Sands

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In attempting to show how response-set theory could account for these results, one might argue that IL categorization per se leads to OL suppression. This ad-hoc assumption absolves intrusions from any responsibility for RI in 0-1, although the formal statements of response-set theory Postman, Stark, & Fraser, 1968) attribute RI to suppression produced by the intrusions which typically occur under 0-0 conditions. If one adopts a hybrid theory containing two suppression mechanisms (one activated by common properties among IL responses, the other by OL intrusions during IL), it then becomes difficult to account for RI data easily explained by the present form of response-set theory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Response-set interference theory Postman, Stark, & Fraser, 1968) also postulates that the first list becomes inaccessible during secondlist learning. As Petrich (1975) notes, however, there are differences "in the conceptualization of what is suppressed and how" (p. 72).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroactive inhibition as a function of the locus of categorized response sets

Chiesi

1976

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The e~fects which list-level taxonomic attributes should have upon retroactive inhibition (RI) producing mechanisms in both response-set interference theory and Petrich's (1975) retrieval model are discussed. A test of the theories was performed by manipulating the presence (1) or absence (0)of categorized response sets in both original learning (OL) and interpolated learning (lL), and comparing their predictions concerning the relative degree of RI expected in the four conditions (0-0, 0-1, 1-0,1-1). In line with Petrich's predictions, OL categorization significantly reduced RI, IL categorization significantly increased RI, and 0-1 produced significantly greater RI than 1-0. Moreover, the obtained ranking of the means for the experimental groups in degree of RI (0-1 > 0-0 > 1-0~1-1) was in close agreement with the ranking predicted by Petrich's (1975)

show abstract

Temporal changes in interference

Cited by 265 publications

References 28 publications

The list-strength effect: Strength-dependent competition or suppression?

The list-strength effect: Strength-dependent competition or suppression?

On the nature of the primacy effect in memory processing: A reply to Gaffan

Retroactive inhibition as a function of the locus of categorized response sets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About