RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 1

Experimental Psychology Lab

Experiment No: 8 Retroactive inhibition

Submitted by:

Momina zulfiqar 191520189

Saman Shahzad 191520148

Ayesha Mehtab 201520182

Rubab 201520194

Momna Ansar 201520211

Humanities and Social Sciences, GIFT University– Gujranwala

Submitted to: Ma’am Mishal Zoha

Date: 10th March 2023

 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 2

Retroactive inhibition

Introduction

Retroactive inhibition is the negative effect 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. This

experiment based on interference theory who states that people forgot not because of memory

loss but because other information adds what people wants to remember. So one aspect of this

theory and occurs when the material learned later disrupts retrieval of information learned

earlier, so old information overlaps with new information.

In brain Retroactive Interference has been localized to the left anterior ventral prefrontal

cortex. A postman study from 1960 identify retroactive interference. The study consist two

groups. Both groups given a list of paired words to memorize. The second group was given a

separate list of paired words. After the second list was introduced, both groups were asked to

recall items from the first list. The results showed that the group who were given the second list

had a harder time remembering the first list. The new information interfered with their ability to

recall older information.

The first systematic study of retroactive inhibition dates back to Muller and Pilzecker

introduce theory of preservation (1900) who coined the term (ruckwirkende Hemmung).

Retroactive inhibition became the object of extensive study in which the effects of the most

diverse conditions on this phenomenon of great scientific interest were examined. Retroactive
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 3

inhibition pertains directly to the problem of the causes of forgetting. Some researchers believe

that retroactive inhibition is if not the only, then at least the main cause of forgetting.

A standard explanation for the cause of retroactive inhibition is competition. New

associations compete with older associations and the more recent association would win out

making it impossible to remember earlier associations. Retroactive Interference has also been

investigated using pitch perception as the learning medium. The researcher found that the

presentation of subsequent stimuli in succession causes a decrease in recalled accuracy.

Retroactive interference affects the performance of old motor movements when newly acquired

motor movements are practiced. Physical practice of newly executed motor movements

decreased the retention and recall of previously learnt movements.

https://practicalpie.com/retroactive-interference/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-1968-9_10#:~:text=Retroactive

%20inhibition%20is%20the%20negative,memorization%20is%20followed%20by%20rest.

https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Retroactive_inhibition

Literature review

This study (ankala, 2011) was conducted on college students (17 to 20) to demonstrate

the relationship between amount of information forgetting while they read and watch television

and time taken to forget it. To measure the memory performance of these students the students

were told to remember 25 different names of people and were asked to Write down those names

every 15 minutes over a five hour period (for a total of 20 tests). Students were instructed to
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 4

watch television or read a book during this interval between the tests. Results indicates that as

time passed, the students mixed up the learnt names with the newly learned information from the

TV and the book. Hence newly learned information interferes with previously stored memories.

This study (boenniger, 2021) was conducted on old age males and female (34 to 94) to

determine the relationship between verbal memory and retroactive inhibition in order to detect

cognitive decline they give participants to learn a list 15 words on several trials. They use

German ray’s verbal memory test. They randomly assigned the lists to 4,000 participants from a

population-based cohort to test their comparability, as well as aging effects and sex differences.

The results indicates that women out performed men that they have good recall performance

while in males recall decreases with age.

This study (murphy, 2022) was conducted on younger and older adults with words paired

with point values to remember for a later test but rather than asking participants to only recall

words from the just studied list, participants were asked to recall all studied words on each recall

test. They conduct two experiments for this purpose in first experiment Participants were told

that they would be presented with six lists of to-be-remembered words with each list containing

12 words. This experimentation was conducted through online tools. Participants recall the

words by typing on screen text board. The task in experiment two was similar to Experiment 1

except that on each recall test, participants were asked to recall as many words as they could

from the just-studied list as well as all previous lists Results revealed that younger adults were

more likely to recall words from previous lists than older adults, indicating that older adults were

more susceptible to retroactive interference.

 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 5

Methodology

Problem Statement

To determine the effect of new learning on prior learning by function of two non-sense

syllables.

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

Two sample subjects were taken. First Participant was assigned a control group. She

was 21 years old. The second participant was the experimental group and of age 22. Both

participants had no prior knowledge of the experiment.

Instruments/Tools

List of non-syllables, memory drum paper pencil, stop watch

 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 6

Procedure

The experimental group participant is given the list A of meaningful word to memorize

the 12 words for 1 minute. Once the timer is up, the list of words is taken and subject is asked to

verbalize the words in correct sequence. The errors will be recorded if the wrong word or wrong

sequence is repeated by them. After the seven trials of repeating the meaningful words is

completed, the participant is given the list B having 12 non-sense syllables to memorize. The

seven trials is taken by repeating the correct sequence of these words. The last step for

experimental group is recording the single trial of recall of meaningful words from List A

without giving them access to the list for relearning. The control group experience the same

treatment except the non-sense syllables list. At first list A meaningful words are memorized by

control group. The errors in seven trials is recorded. After that, the single recall trial is taken for

list A of meaningful words. 

Results

Quantitative result

Round 1
Table 1
Experimental Group Meaningful Words List (A)

Trail Trail 2 Trail Trail 4 Trail 5 Trail Trail 7

1 3 6

1. CAT
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 7

2. FUR

3. MAN

4. SUN

5. RAM

6. BOY

7. FAT

8. TOY

9. GOD

10. MAT

11. FAN

12. SIT

List B
Experimental Group non-sense Syllables List (A)

Non-sense Syllables  Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail 4 Trail Trail 6 Trail 7

5

1. MEZ

2. XOW

3. FIV

4. PEQ

5. RAV

6. NUZ

7. GIR

8. SOF
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 8

9. WEP

10. CIB

11. XAY

12. VUF

List B
Table 3 
Control Group Meaningful List (B)

Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail Trail 5 Trail 6 Trail 7

4

1. CAT

2. FUR

3. MAN

4. SUN

5. RAM

6. BOY

7. FAT

8. TOY

9. GOD

10. MAT

11. FAN

12. SIT

Meaningful Words vs Non-sense Syllables

Table 4
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 9

List  Tria Responses  Errors

l

Experimental group non-sense syllables  A 

Experimental group non-sense syllables B 
Control group meaningful words A

Round 2
Table 5
Experimental Group Meaningful Words List (A)

Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail Trail 5 Trail 6 Trail 7

4

13. CAT

14. FUR

15. MAN

16. SUN

17. RAM

18. BOY

19. FAT

20. TOY

21. GOD

22. MAT

23. FAN

24. SIT

Table 6
List B
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 10

Control Group Meaningful List (B)

Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail Trail 5 Trail 6 Trail 7

4

13. CAT

14. FUR

15. MAN

16. SUN

17. RAM

18. BOY

19. FAT

20. TOY

21. GOD

22. MAT

23. FAN

24. SIT

Experimental vs Control Group 

Trial Responses  Errors

Control group non-sense

syllables 
Control group meaningful words

Experimental Vs Control Group 

 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 11

Groups  List  Trail Responses Errors

Experimental group Meaningful words A

Experimental group non-sense B

syllables

Control group Meaningful words  A

Experimental group Meaningful words A

Control group Meaningful words B

Qualitative result

The recorded finding suggest that as the number of trials increases, the time taken to

complete the human maze significantly decreases with 134 second in first trial and reducing to

71 second in the last trial. Although, there was no significant different in number of errors as it

moved within the range of 1 to 3 with no specific order. This means our hypothesis is accepted

because the participant learned to complete maze in less time after practicing

Discussion

The purpose of the current study is to determine the effect of new learning on prior

learning by function of two non-sense syllables. This is done by introducing new learning of

non-sense syllables to the participant of Experimental group and comparing the recall in both

groups. The new learning here inhibits the retrieval of prior knowledge. The hypothesis of our

study states that performance in control group on recall list A will be better than the recall of

subjects in experimental group. The errors for recall of meaningful words for experimental group
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 12

will be comparatively more than the errors of Control group. The reason behind this is that the

control group is not introduced to the new Knowledge of non-sense syllables so their prior

learning remain unaffected. 

Limitation

The first limitation of the current study can be that the both participant may have

individual differences or one may have better memory skills which can distort the result. The

accuracy of result can also be affected by noise and distraction in the environment. The

pronunciation of non-sense syllables is interpreted differently by every person. It can affect the

learning and memory.

Recommendation

The further researchers can include the standard way of conducting the experiment by

innovating and introducing the computerized representation of stimulus. The researcher must

ensure that the surrounding is quiet and peaceful before conducting the experiment.
 RETROACTIVE INHIBITION 13

References

References
ankala, v. (2011). Retroactive Interference and Forgetting. Undergraduate Journal of Mathematical
Modeling One + Two, 3(2). doi:10.5038/2326-3652.3.2.4

boenniger, m. e. (2021). Ten German versions of Rey’s auditory verbal learning test: Age and sex effects
in 4,000 adults of the Rhineland Study. 637-653.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2021.1984398

murphy, d. c. (2022, september). Differential effects of proactive and retroactive interference in value-
directed remembering for younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000707