Habit Interference

Experimenter’s Initial: A Gender: Female

Subject’s Initial: UR Age: 51

Aim:​ To study the interference of one habit with another that i.e. observe negative transfer of
learning

Materials Required:​ i) Habit Interference board ii)Stop Watch iii) A pack of cards (60 playing
cards made of 15 cards in each suit with Jacks, Kings and Queens removed)

Procedure: ​The board with four sections was placed in front of the subject with the heart section
on the upper left and the spade on the upper right. The subject is made to stand in front of the
board and asked to avoid changing her position during the trials. Between the trials the subject
could be permitted to sit. The experimenter is asked to take care that the subject’s relative
position to the board does not change. The cards were shuffled well and handed facedown to the
subject.

The following instructions were given, “when I say ‘Ready’ you are to turn over the top card and
place it in the heart section if the card has a heart sign on it or in the spade section if it has a
spade sign and so on. When the second card is turned over throw it in the section of the previous
card i.e. the suit of the first card regardless of its suit. Then throw the third card into the section
of the previous card i.e. the suit of the second card. Proceed in the same manner with the other
cards disregarding the number on the card, attending only to the suits Work as fast as possible
attempting to reduce the time taken over successive trials”

The experimenter should note down the number of errors and the time taken for the trials. 10
trials were given with the board in the position of the heart on the top left. After 10 trials, the
position of the board is changed where the heart is on the top right corner of the board. 5 trials
are given after changing position of the board. The experimenter noted the time taken and errors
for each trial. Peculiarities were noted down by the experimental.

An introspective report was collected from the subject with specific reference to the trials after
changing the position of the board.

Precautions: ​i) The cards used are shuffled well before each trial.
ii) The subject is to be instructed about the change in position of the board after the first 15 trials.

Results:​ i) Table 1a represents the raw data of the subject for the time taken and errors made for
the first 10 trials
ii) Table 1b represents the raw data of the subject for the time taken and errors made for the trial
11 to 15

GENERAL DISCUSSION

LEARNING: ​Learning has been defined functionally as changes in behavior that result from
experience or mechanistically as changes in the organism that result from experience.

TRANSFER OF LEARNING
Transfer of learning​ means the use of previously acquired knowledge and skills in new learning
or problem-solving situations. Thereby similarities and analogies between previous and actual
learning content and processes may play a crucial role. The transfer phenomenon is presented
within a general perspective of learning.
There are two types of transfer :
● Positive Transfer of Learning ​: This type of transfer occurs when learning in one
context enhances a related performance in another context.
● Negative Transfer of Learning ​: This type of transfer occurs when learning in one
context undermines a related performance in another context

LAWS OF LEARNING:

● Law of Readiness- This law states that learning can only take place when an
individual is ready to learn.
○ Law of Exercise-The more a person practices something, the better he or she is
able to retain that knowledge.
○ Law of Effect- In simple terms, this law states three things: Learning is
strengthened when associated with a pleasant or satisfying feeling. Learning is
weakened when associated with unpleasant feelingsLearning occurs when it
results in satisfaction and the learner derives pleasure out of it.
○ Law of Primacy- Think back to the time when it was proven that the Earth was
round and not flat. The concept was nearly impossible for the majority of those
alive to accept. This is because once a person learns something, it is almost
impossible to tell them that it is actually different. That is the law of primacy.
○ Law of Recency - This law reminds us that we remember the most recent (last)
material covered.
○ Law of Intensity - The more excitement your eLearning course creates, the more
likely it will be remembered. Creating a hands-on experience, or one that causes
the student to feel strong emotion will make the lesson more easily remembered.
HABIT FORMATION

Habit formation is the process by which behaviors become automatic. Habits can form without a
person intending to acquire them, but they can also be deliberately cultivated or eliminated—to
better suit one’s personal ​goals​.

Habit formation occurs in a 2 step process:

1. The first step is the trigger or cue ​telling your brain to go into automatic mode. This is
the decision making part of your brain.
2. The second step is the routine or the behavior itself. This is where your
decision-making part of the brain and the emotional or memory part of the brain work
together.

INTERFERENCE:

Interference is a memory phenomenon in which some memories interfere with the retrieval of
other memories. In other words, forgetting occurs because of interference from other memories.

RESEARCH STUDIES RELATED TO HABIT INTERFERENCE:

1. Habit interference in the white rat and in human subjects:​ The literature of habit
interference in animals is reviewed and the results are summarized, as a background for
Hunter's investigation which sought to solve two problems, namely: To plot a curve for
habit interference; and to secure data concerning the correlation existing between the
ability to form a habit and the ability to break that habit by establishing an antagonistic
habit. The results which accrued from these investigations are the following: Opposite
visual habits exhibit negative transfer or habit interference; when the two habits are
compared in the form of a Vincent curve, interference seems to have its locus in the first
one-half of learning; positive transfer is exhibited by any consideration of total times,
distances, or trials (and the latter halves of the learning curves for time and distance show
almost no improvement); the Vincent curve seems a favorable one to use when a
composite representation of the learning by process is desired; a curve, constructed
through the points of zero, the 100th trial, and the point of total interference, gives an
interference curve for visual habits; greater variability characterizes the second visual
discrimination habit as compared with the first, and this condition is reversed with maze
habits; and rats gave no correlation between ability to form one visual discrimination
habit and the ability to break that habit through establishment of the opposite habit, while
human subjects with the pencil maze exhibited a high correlation between the two
abilities
2. Transfer of training in the mastery of an antagonistic habit after varying intervals
of time: ​Groups consisting of 20-30 rats learned to swim to the right in a "T" maze. They
 were later trained to swim to the left in the same maze. The interval between training on
the two habits varied from 0 to 28 days. A control group learned only the second habit.
Analysis of the data for trials and errors indicates that negative transfer decreases as the
interval between learning of the two habits increases. After intervals of 14 and 28 days
the transfer effect is positive.

OTHER EXPERIMENTS ON HABIT INTERFERENCE

Modified Stroop Test- ​A modification of the Stroop Test, is a demonstration of the powerful
interference effect caused by prior learning. In the first task, the subject is asked to read
normally, from top left to right, line by line as fast as possible. For example, the first word is
"green", the second is "brown" and so on. In the second task, instead of reading the word,
the subject has to name the colour of the text in which each word is written in the similar
way. For example, the colour of the first word is "pink" so you have to say "pink" instead of
"green". The second is "red", not "brown" and so on. Record the time taken for both the tasks
in seconds.By doing this adapted version of the Stroop Test the subject experienced proactive
habit interference, also known as the proactive inhibition (PI) effect. Prior learning/training,
i.e., the meaning of a word, interfered with your attempts to learn the new, conflicting
knowledge, namely the colour of the word.

Instructional Sets and Habit Interference- ​To test for the interactions between
instructional sets and previous practice,the subjects were shown a sequence of letters one at a
time with instructions to respond by pushing a button whenever any one of a set of eight
predesignated letters appeared. After five trials with the same letters, subjects were divided
into three groups for transfer tests. Nine subjects were assigned the same letters in a
scrambled order (“same” group). Nine other subjects were assigned an entirely new set of
eight letters (“different” group), and eighteen others were assigned a set of four new and four
old letters (“half ” group). Complete positive transfer was found with the "same" group. No
evidence of negative transfer of learning was obtained in the "different" group. Evidence was
also reported of negative transfer in the carry-over of old responses in the "half" group.

INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION

Table 1a represents the raw data of the subject for the time taken and errors made for the first 10
trials.

Trial No Time Taken No of Errors

1. 197s 1

2. 132s -
 3. 118s 1

4. 108s 1

5. 106s -

6. 93s -

7. 83s -

8. 74s -

9, 77s -

10. 74s -

Table 1b represents the raw data of the subject for the time taken and errors made for the trial 11
to 15.

Trial No Time Take No of Errors

11. 98s -

12. 101s 2

13. 90s 1

14. 77s -

15. 83s -

The experiment on habit interference was performed by subject UR, a 51 year old college
educated female. The effects of habit interference were tested using the card sorting task. After
establishing rapport, the subject was made to feel comfortable and the task was explained to her.
The time she took to sort all 60 cards and the errors committed while doing so were recorded in
tables 1a and 1b.

The subject took 197 seconds to complete the very first trial and committed 1 error. There were
fluctuations in the number of errors made in the first 5 trials which was accompanied by a
consistent decrease in time taken. From the 6th trial onwards, her performance became quite
stable and the errors committed were low. In the 8th and 10th trial, the subject took the least time
and committed no errors.
While comparing trials 1 and 10, it can be seen that the subject took less amount of time to
complete the 10th trial with no errors being committed. The subject made 1 error and took the
maximum amount of time to complete the 1st trial. Hence, it can be said that learning took place.
The subject had formed a habit through repeated practice.

While comparing the 5th and 10th trial, it can be seen that the subject took less amount of time to
complete the 10th trial. In both the 5th and the 10th trial, there were no errors committed. It can
be said that learning took place. Hence through repeated practice, the subject had formed a habit.

While comparing trials 5 and 15, it can be seen that she took less time to complete the 15th trial.
She did not commit any errors in both the trials. Even though the position of the board was
changed after the 10th trial, it can be said that with practice, she had formed a habit and learning
had taken place.

While comparing the 10th and 11th trial, it can be seen that she had taken more amount of time
to complete the 11th trial. This could be attributed to the change in the position of the board. In
both the trials, she did not commit an error. So, it can be said that negative transfer of learning
and habit interference has occurred.

While comparing the 11th and the 15th trial, it can be said that practise effect has played a role
and that learning has occured. The subject took 15 seconds less to complete the 15th trial. In both
the trials, there were no errors committed. Hence, it can be said that no negative transfer of
learning or habit interference had occurred.
The subject started getting a little frustrated as the number of trials kept increasing and wanted to
get done with the experiment as she had mentioned in her introspective report. But that factor did
not seem to affect her performance a lot. On an average, she had committed 0.3 errors in both
original position(sorting apparatus) and in the changed position. She took an average of 106.2
seconds to complete the task in the original position and 89.8 seconds in the changed position. In
conclusion, it can be said that though the subject was a little frustrated with the experiment, the
subject was able to transfer learning (to the new position) effectively.

INTROSPECTIVE REPORT
The subject stated that she thought that the experiment was very interesting. She also
mentioned that she got a little frustrated with the experiment and wanted to be done with it soon
because she felt that it was too time consuming.

GROUP DISCUSSION
Table 2a represents the raw data of the group for the time taken for trials 1-15
S. No Initials Age Gender Mean Time Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial
Taken (in 10 11 5 15 11 15
seconds)

01-10 11-15

1 SM 45 F 124.8 139.4 96 161 130 125 161 125

2 MM 51 F 128.4 118 104 126 114 88 126 88

3 UL 42 F 95.6 73.6 77 84 78 73 84 73

4 B 45 M 106.9 98.8 100 186 90 72 186 72

5 PP 45 F 190.6s 110.4 135 136 121 90 136 90

6 UR 51 F 106.2 89.8 74 98 106 83 98 83

7 SJP 49 M 180.4 60.9 150 182 220 107 182 107

8 BB 41 F 141.1 114.2 128 126 135 97 126 97

9 CMM 48 M 190.9 169.4 120 203 151 135 203 135

10 RL 54 M 89 63.8 56 60 65 58 60 58

11 LA 52 M 155.5 119.8 115 131 304 113 131 113

12 SA 43 F 93.1 75.2 76 79 92 71 79 71

13 RR 59 M 87.3 77 66 90 74 70 90 70

14 P 55 F 65 50 53 55 58 50 55 50

15 JP 45 F 124.3 114.4 108 140 129 105 140 105

 16 SA 43 F 85 84.4 73 93 87 70 93 70

17 JU 52 F 190 156 140 180 152 125 180 125

Mean 122.71 100.88 98.29 125.29 123.88 90.11 125.29 90.11

SD 39.35 33.77 30.19 45.86 61.10 25.02 45.86 25.02

Table 2b represents the raw data of the group for the errors committed for trials 1-15.

S. No Initials Age Gender Mean Errors Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial
Made 10 11 5 15 11 15

01-10 11-15

1 SM 45 F 0.5 0.4 0 2 0 0 2 0

2 MM 51 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 UL 42 F 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 B 45 M 2.3 1.8 2 0 0 0 0 0

5 PP 45 F 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 UR 51 F 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 SJP 49 M 1.8 0.6 3 1 1 0 1 0

8 BB 41 F 2.4 1 0 2 0 0 2 0

9 CMM 48 M 1.9 0.2 0 1 1 0 1 0

10 RL 54 M 0.8 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0
 11 LA 52 M 0.9 1.4 0 1 0 1 1 1

12 SA 43 F 0.7 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 RR 59 M 0.8 0.8 0 2 1 0 2 0

14 P 55 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 JP 45 F 0.6 1.4 0 2 1 1 2 1

16 SA 43 F 1.9 1.2 0 3 5 1 3 1

17 JU 52 F 2.4 0.6 0 1 0 0 1 0

Mean 1.14 0.62 0.29 0.88 0.52 0.17 0.88 0.17

SD 0.85 0.57 0.84 0.99 1.23 0.39 0.99 0.39

The experiment on habit interference was performed by 17 male and female subjects of ages 40
to 60. The average time taken for the 1st and 2nd set of trials are 122.71 and 100.88. The
standard deviation for the 1st and 2nd set is 39.35 and 33.77.

The average of errors made in the first 10 trials is 1.14 with scores ranging from 0-2.4. The mean
was affected by scores of subjects like B, BB, SA, JU who performed the poorest and subjects
SM, MM, UL, UR, RL, LA, SA, RR, P, JP who performed the best. The mean of the errors
committed in the last 5 trials is 0.62 with scores ranging from 0-1.8. The subjects who performed
their best for the last five trials are SM, MM, UL, PP, UR, SJP, CMM, RL, SA, RR, P and the
subjects who performed the poorest are B, BB, LA, JP, SA. comparing the averages of the first
10 and last 5 trials, indicated that positive transfer of learning had occurred for the group as a
whole. A total of 11 subjects showed a positive transfer of learning. This means that a majority
of subjects did not experience habit interference. The subject worst affected by habit interference
was subject LA as the number of errors he committed increased from 0.9 in the first 10 trials to
1.4 in the last five trials. Subjects UL and PP were least affected by habit interference as they
committed 0 errors in the last 5 trials. Subjects MM and P are the outliers as they made 0 errors
in the first ten and last five trials.
Comparing subject UR to the rest of the group, reveals that she did fairly well. She did not make
many errors. And it can be seen from the individual table that there was a decrease in the time
taken and errors from trial 1-10. An increase in the time and error in trial 11 followed by a
decrease in the errors and stable time maintained till trial 15.
The group on an average took 98.29 seconds to complete the task in the 10th trial at the end of
habit formation or training and an average of 125.29 seconds in the 11th trial after changing the
position. In the 10th and 11th trial, the subjects committed an average of 0.29 and 0.88 errors
respectively showing that negative transfer of training had occurred; longer time and more error.

The 5th trial is compared to the 15th trial to see how practice through 5 trials in the original and
changed position has affected scores. The average time taken for the 5th trial is 123.88 and error
is 0.52. For the 15th trial, average time taken is 90.11 and errors committed is 0.17. Since both
time taken and errors committed was lesser for the 15th trial, it can be stated that habit formation
had happened for the new and changed position.

Comparing the 11th and the 15th trial, can help understand the effects of habit interference
resulting from change in position and how practice through the first 5 trials can nullify negative
transfer or improve performance. The average time taken in the 11th trial was 125.29 and the
errors committed was 0.88. The average time taken in the 15th trial was 90.11 and the errors
committed was 0.17. Since both time taken and errors committed had reduced through the 5
trials it may be said that practice improved performance in the new position.

Time taken in the first 10 trials has an average of 122.71 seconds and in the last five, 100.88
seconds. Similarly, errors committed for the first 10 trials are 1.14 and for the last five trials 0.62.
Since the time taken and the errors committed are lesser for the last five trials, it can be said that
a positive transfer of learning had occurred.

In her first 10 trials, subject UR committed an average of 0.3 errors which is lower than the
group’s average(1.14) taking an average of 106.2 seconds which is lesser than the group’s
value(122.71). In her last 5 trials, she committed an average of 0.3 errors which is lesser than the
group’s value(0.62) taking an average of 89.8 seconds which is lesser than the group’s
value(100.88). Hence it can be said that she performed better than the group in both sets of trials.

CONCLUSION
1. The average time taken and errors committed by the subject before changing the position
of the board is 106.2 seconds and 0.3 errors.
2. The average time taken and errors committed by the subject after changing the position of
the board is 89.8 seconds and 0.3 errors.
3. The average time taken and errors committed by the group before changing the position
of the board is 122.71 seconds and 1.14 errors.
 4. The average time taken and errors committed by the group after changing the position of
the board is 100.88 seconds and 0.62 errors.
5. The subject showed positive transfer of learning.
6. The group as a whole showed positive transfer of learning.

REFERENCES
● Jan De Houwer, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, & Agnes Moors. (2013). What is learning? On
the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. ​Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review​, ​20​(.), 631–642. ​https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-013-0386-3
● Haskell, R. E. (2004). Transfer of Learning. ​Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology​,
575–586. ​https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-657410-3/00834-5
● Steiner, G. (2001). Transfer of Learning, Cognitive Psychology of. ​International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,​ 15845–15851.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/01481-9
● https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2402396_Transfer_Of_Learning
● What Is Interference in Psychology?. (2020). Retrieved 21 October 2020, from
https://www.verywellmind.com/interference-definition-4587808
● Habit Pattern Errors and Technique Correction.​ Personalbest.com.au. (2020). Retrieved
19 October 2020, from
https://www.personalbest.com.au/habitpatternerrors.html#:~:text=By%20doing%20this%
20adapted%20version%20of%20the%20Stroop,conflicting%20knowledge%2C%20name
ly%20the%20colour%20of%20the%20word​.
● Smith, M. H., Jr. (1952). Instructional sets and habit interference. ​Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 44​(4), 267–272. ​https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053519
● Hunter, W. S. (1922). Habit Interference in the White Rat and in Human Subjects.
Journal of Comparative Psychology. Retrieved 21 October 2020, from
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072672
● Bunch, M. E. (1939). Transfer of training in the mastery of an antagonistic habit after varying
intervals of time. ​Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28​(2), 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059124