EXPERIMENT NO: 2 Retroactive Inhibition

Abstract

Subjects’ performance in control group on recall list A will be better than the recall of subjects in experimental group.

Full text

EXPERIMENT NO: 2
Retroactive Inhibition
Introduction
Retroactive inhibition is the negative eect of an activity
following memorization on the retention of the material memorized. If
memorization is followed by some other activity, recall of the material
may not be as complete as when the memorization is followed by rest
(Smirnov, 1973). This deterioration of recall is due to the "inhibitory"
eect of the activity following the memorization. Therefore, the
inhibition involved has been designated retroactive inhibition.
Obviously, this "retroactive eect" cannot be interpreted literally as an
in'uence on the actual process of memorization (Smirnov, 1973). By
the time the next activity begins, this process has already been
completed, and therefore we are dealing not with an in'uence on the
process itself, but only on the "traces" resulting from the memorization
(Smirnov, 1973). The *rst systematic study of retroactive inhibition
dates back to Muller & Pilzecker (1900) who coined the term
(rUckwirkende Hemming).
Retroactive inhibition became the object of extensive study
(printed in a considerable number of publications) in which the eects
of the most diverse conditions on this phenomenon of great scienti*c
interest were examined (Smirnov, 1973). Retroactive inhibition is of

substantial theoretical interest, since it pertains directly to the problem
of the causes of forgetting. Some investigators even believe that
retroactive inhibition is, if not the only, then at least the main cause of
forgetting (Smirnov, 1973). In this regard, the French psychologist
Foucault (Britt, 1935) states that "what causes forgetting is not time
itself, but how this time is occupied." Storing (1931) holds the same
views, asserting that "not time in itself, but the impressions received in
the course of time lead quite naturally to the forgetting of old
impressions (Smirnov, 1973).
Literature Review
A retroactive interference experiment was conducted by
Postman (1960, as cited in McLeod, 2018) to investigate how
retroactive interference aects learning.; In other words, to investigate
whether information you have recently received interferes with the
ability to recall something you learned earlier. A lab experiment was
used. Participants were split into two groups.; Both groups had to
remember a list of paired words – e.g. cat - tree, jelly - moss, book -
tractor.; The experimental group also had to learn another list of words
where the second paired word if dierent – e.g. cat – glass, jelly- time,
book – revolver.; The control group were not given the second list. All
participants were asked to recall the words on the *rst list. The recall

of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental
group (Postman, 1960, as cited in McLeod, 2018).
Another experiment by McKinney (1935) tested a series of 4 full-
page advertisements which were presented to 40 undergraduates.
Some subjects were tested for recall before and after a 10-minute
"work" interval occupied in studying two advertisements. Other
subjects were tested for recall similarly, but with an interpolated "rest"
period involving number cancellation. Retroactive inhibition was
observed among participants for a whole advertisement with
percentage 5.39. The average eect of retroactive inhibition in
descending order from 23.5% to 0% on various parts of the
advertisement is as follows: slogan, picture, title, reading content, and
name of product.
Problem Statement
To determine the eect of learning on prior learning by function
of two non-sense syllables.
Methodology
Hypothesis
Subjects’ performance in control group on recall list A will be
better than the recall of subjects in experimental group.
Independent Variable

The list of non-syllables, Meaningful word
Dependent Variable
Subject recall
Sample/subject
There are two subjects, one is experimental and other is
control group which has same attribute no past experience and
knowledge with same 8th semester.
.
Instruments/Tools
List of non-syllables, memory drum paper pencil, and stop watch.
Procedure
The experiment was performed online via phone call. First, we
use the recalling method in which *rst subject is experiment. As a
psychologist I recall the *rst the non-sense words the subject listens
carefully according the inform concerned he recall the words which the
subject remembers. The right and wrong pronunciation of words
counted a then the meaning words recalling and same procedure
repeat. The experimental group has two chances to improve the
memorization. Then the turn of the control group and recall the sense
then non-sense words and record it.

Results
Table 1
Experimental Group non-sense syllables: List A
Trail Response Error
157
2 2 10
339
448
575
666
793
The table 1 shows the results for experimental group non-sense
syllables list A. The results indicates that subject accurately responded
for all the non-sense words in 7 trials.
Table 2
Experimental Group non-sense syllables: List B
Trail Response Error
196
248
357
475
593
6 10 2
7 11 1

The table 2 shows the results for experimental group non-sense
syllables list B. The results indicates that subject accurately responded
for all the non-sense words 7 trials.
Table 3
Experimental Group Meaningful word: List A
Trail Response Error
166
275
384
493
593
6 10 2
7 11 1
The table 3 shows the results for experimental group meaningful
words list A. The results indicates that subject accurately responded for
all the meaningful words in a total of 7 trials and error in recalling the
meaningful words was found.
Table 4
Experimental Group Meaningful word: List B
Trail Response Error
1 11 1
293
3 11 1
4 12 0

5 10 2
6 11 1
7 12 0
The table 4 shows the results for experimental group meaningful
words list B. The results indicates that subject accurately responded for
all the meaningful words in a total of 7 trials and error in recalling the
meaningful words was found.
Table 5
Recall
List Trial Respons
es
Errors
Experimen
tal group non-
sense syllables
A 7 5-9 7-3
Experimen
tal group non-
sense syllables
B 7 9-11 3-1
Experimen
tal group
meaningful
words
A 7 6-11 6-1
Experimen
tal group
meaningful
words
B 7 11-12 1-0

Table 5 indicated the *nal recall for the non-sense and
meaningful words List A, and B for the experimental group. The results
show that for the non-sense syllables List A the subject responded to 5
words accurately and only made error for 7 words from the list,
whereas for List B the subject accurately responded to 11 words and
made error for 1 word in the list. For the meaningful words List, A
responded 6 words accurately and make 6 errors and B the subject
responded accurately 11 words from list and made one error.
Table 6
Control Group non-sense syllables
Trail Response Error
166
275
393
4 11 1
593
6 12 0
7 12 0
The table 6 shows the results for control group non-sense
syllables. The results indicates that subject accurately responded for
all the non-sense words 7 trials in which errors occurred.
Table 7
Control Group Meaningful words

Trail Response Error
157
248
339
457
557
693
784
The table 7 shows the results for control group meaningful
words. The results indicates that subject accurately responded the
meaningful words in 7 trails.
Table 8
Recall
Trial Responses Errors
Control
group non-sense
syllables
7 5-8 7-4
Control
group meaningful
words
7 6-12 6-0
Table 8 indicated the recall for the control group non-sense
syllables and meaningful words. The results indicate that subject
responded 6 words accurately and make 6 errors in meaningful words
while in non-sense words 5 right and 7 errors.

Table 9
Total Recall for Experimental Group and Control Group
Meaningful and Non-Sense Syllables
Groups List Trail Respons
es
Errors
Experime
ntal group non-
sense syllables
A 7 5-9 7-3
Experime
ntal group non-
sense syllables
B 7 9-11 3-1
Experime
ntal group
Meaningful
words
A 7 6-11 6-1
Experime
ntal group
Meaningful
words
B 7 11-12 1-0
Control
group non-
sense syllables
- 7 6-12 6-0
Control
group
Meaningful
words
- 7 5-8 7-4
Table 9 indicated the total recall for the experimental group and
control group non-sense and meaningful words. The results indicate for

the experimental group, the non-sense syllables List A the subject
responded to 7 words accurately and only made error for 5 word from
the list, whereas for List B the subject accurately responded to 9 words
and made error for 3 words in the list. For the meaningful words List, A
and B, the subject responded accurately to all 7 trials from both of the
list and made some error. For the control group non-sense syllables
and meaningful words. The results indicate that subject responded to 6
words accurately for the non-sense words and made 6 errors, whereas
for the meaningful words the subject responded to 5 words correctly
and made error in 7 words from the list.
Discussion
The study consisted of two groups one was experimental and the
other was control group who performed recalling experiment with the
help of non-sense syllables and meaningful words which they had to
recall after they were shown to them after intervals. Experimental
group had two chances for each list while control group only one
chance for each list. Results were noted and the comparison shows us
that the subject in experimental group performed better in both the
lists of words in comparison to the control group. Control group has
more visible errors in recalling both the meaningful words and the non-
sense syllables as well. These results from the experiment are
considerably contradictory from the studies which have been quoted in
the literature of this report, whereas in one study the control group

performed better than experimental group which contradicts with this
study. The experiment produced dierent results as compared to the
experiments conducted by Postman (1960, as cited in McLeod, 2018)
and McKinney (1935) as they conducted experiments on interference
by providing their experimental groups with interfering information on
a recall list they were advised to learn earlier, this experiment thus
only checked subjects’ errors in memory recall for meaningful and non-
sense words.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY Britt, S. H. (1935). Retroactive inhibition: a review of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 381–440.
McKinney, F. (1935). Retroactive inhibition in advertising . Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59–66.
McLeod. (2018).). Initial Assessment of High Utilizers of Emergency
Department Services. Doctoral dissertation, Shepherd University.
McLeod, D. S. (2018). Proactive and Retroactive Interference. Retrieved
from . www.simplypsychology.org/proactive-and-retroactive-
interference
Smirnov. (1973). Conditions for Retroactive Inhibition. Problems of the
Psychology of Memory, 279–298.

Guarnera, M., Pellerone, M., Commodari, E., Valenti, G. D., & Buccheri,
S. L. (2019). Mental Images and School Learning: A Longitudinal
Study on Children. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02034
Sanders, C. W., Sadoski, M., van Walsum, K., Bramson, R., Wiprud, R.,
& Fossum, T. W. (2008). Learning basic surgical skills with mental
imagery: using the simulation centre in the mind. Medical
Education, 42(6), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2007.02964.x
Nelis, S., Vanbrabant, K., Holmes, E. A., & Raes, F. (2012).
Greater Positive Aect Change after Mental Imagery than Verbal
Thinking in a Student Sample. Journal of Experimental
Psychopathology, 3(2), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.021111