Studies of distributed practice: XX. Sources of interference associated with differences in learning and retention.

Abstract

The present studies deal with learning and retention of pairedassociate lists as a function of massed and distributed acquisition. As interlist interference builds up across lists, distributed practice is more and more likely to facilitate paired-associate learning; this fact is quite clear if learning is carried to a fairly high level (Underwood & Richardson, 1958). However, there is no indication that for varying levels of interlist interference distributed practice will be followed by appreciably better retention than will massed practice , 1958. This is contrary to results found with serial learning where distributed practice gives better retention than does massed practice when interlist interference is high (Underwood & Richardson, 1955). It is this contradiction that is the focal point of the present experiments. The matter could, of course, be dropped by assuming that the contradictory results represent consequences of intrinsic and fundamental differences in paired-associate and serial learning. However, in the interest of empirical continuity across tasks, it does not seem appropriate to make such an assumption until more exhaustive analyses have been made.In the paired-associate studies referred to above, the lists were con-

Word frequency and accumulative proactive inhibition.

“…While the opposite relationship is more likely correct, the matter can be resolved directly. Both in an earlier study (Underwood & Schulz, 1961), and in the present one, the number of trials to attain a common criterion did not differ as a function of stage of practice and still PI increased directly as a function of number of prior lists learned.…”

Effects of prior and interpolated learning on retention in pigeons.

“…A similar repeated-extinction hypothesis has been suggested as a possible explanation for superior retention following acquisition under distributed rather than massed practice. In interpreting such a finding obtained under a similarstimulus-changed-response design, Underwood and Schulz (1961) suggested that:…”

Studies of distributed practice: XXI. Effect of interference from language habits.

“…The last report in this series (Underwood & Schulz, 1961) indicated that when distributed practice facilitates acquisition of paired-associate lists it does so as a consequence of interference occurring during the responseintegration phase of learning. The interference was produced by having 5s learn lists containing elements which subsequently interfered with the response learning of the critical or test list.…”