Habit Interference

Introduction

A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less fixed way of thinking,
willing, or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental experience (Andrews, 1903).
The process by which new behaviors become automatic is habit formation. Old habits are hard to
break and new habits are hard to form because the behavioral patterns we repeat are imprinted in
our neural pathways, but it is possible to form new habits through repetition. As behaviors are
repeated in a consistent context, there is an incremental increase in the link between the context
and the action. This increases the automaticity of the behavior in that context. Interference is a
phenomenon of human memory involving the learning of new material where the learning of
new information or behavior interacts with “old learning” or memories, thoughts and behaviors
that come from past learning, and interferes with the acquisition or comprehension of the new
information.

Interference theory is theory regarding human memory. There are two main kinds of
interference, proactive interference and retroactive interference. Proactive interference is the
forgetting of information due to interference from the traces of events or learning that occurred
prior to the materials to be remembered (“Interference theory”, n.d.). Proactive interference
occurs when, in any given context, past memories inhibit an individual’s full potential to retain
new memories. It has been hypothesized that forgetting working memories would be non-
existent if not for proactive interference. Retroactive interference (RI) is a phenomenon that
occurs when newly learned information interferes with and impedes the recall of previously
learned information. RI is a result of decreased recall of the primary studied functions due to the
learning and recall of succeeding functions.

Habit interference experiment works on the principles of habit formation and

interference. The experiment was first done by Bergström (1893 and 1894), Brown (1914), Bair
(1902), and Culler (1912) who found that changing the arrangement of compartments into which
cards were being sorted produced interference effects. Bergström (1894) concluded that "the
interference effect of an association bears a constant relation to the practice effect, and is, in fact,
equivalent to it." Both Bair and Culler found that the interference of the opposing habits
disappeared if the habits were practiced alternately. Interference or inhibition (the terms seem to
have been used almost indiscriminately) has been given a large place in experimental literature.
The investigation was begun by the physiologists prior to 1890 (Bowditch and Warren, J. W.,
1890) and has been continued to the present, principally by psychologists (Lester, 1932).

Review of literature

Study 1

Culler (1912) reported (as cited in Stroop, 1935) two experiments related habit
interference. In one experiment the subjects associated each of a series of numbers with striking
a particular key on the typewriter with a particular finger; then the keys were changed so that
four of the numbers had to be written with fingers other than those formerly used to write them.
This change in the keys created an interference with the previously formed habit and there was
an increase in the time taken to complete the typing task. In the other experiment the subjects
were trained to react with the right hand to 'red' and with the left hand to 'blue.' Then the stimuli
were interchanged. In the former experiment interference was found which decreased rapidly
with practice. In the latter experiment the interference was overbalanced by the practice effect.

Study 2

Briggs (1954) study modeled McGeoch’s work on interference by setting the stage for a
classic design of retroactive interference. In his study participants were asked to learn 12 paired
associates to a criterion of 100%. To ensure parsimony, these pairs can be labeled as A1-B1-, A2-
B2-…Ai-Bi (also called AB/AC paradigm). Briggs used a "modified free recall" technique by
asking participants to recall an item when cued with Bi. Over multiple anticipation trials,
participants learned Bi items through the prompt of Bi items. After perfecting Ai- Bi learning,
participants were given a new list of paired associates to learn; however Bi items were replaced
with Ci items (now given a list of A1-C1-, A2-C2-…Ai-Ci). As the learning of Ai-Ci pairs
increased, the learning of Ai-Bi pairs decreased. Eventually recalling the Ci items exceeded the
recall of the Bi items, representing the phenomenon of retroactive interference. A significant part
of Briggs (1954) study was that once participants were tested after a delay of 24 hours the Bi
responses spontaneously recovered and exceeded the recall of the Ci items.
 Methodology

Problem

To study negative transfer of training with the help of card-sorting.

Hypothesis

Habit formation negatively influences new learning.

Variables

Independent variable: Change in the order of card sorting.

Dependent variable: Time score

Controls/Precautions

1. The Subject should not change his/her position during any part of the experiment.

2. The cards must be shuffled thoroughly.

3. Whenever the subject places a card in a wrong compartment, he/she has to rectify the
mistake.

Plan

Conduct the experiment in two series, and compare the time scores.

Materials

1. Card sorting tray with two sections A and B. Each divided into four compartments.
The order in which designs are placed is different in the two sections.

2. A set of forty cards. (The cards consist of four subsets of ten cards each. Each subset
has different design.)
 3. Stop clock.

Procedure

Series 1: The card sorting tray is placed on a table. The subject sorts the cards standing in
front of the tray. The cards are shuffled thoroughly, and subject is asked to hold the cards face-
up. The subject is instructed that the pack of cards have different designs. Sections A of the tray
is placed which has four compartments, each marked with a design. The subject has to take each
card, and place it in the compartment with the corresponding design. When an error is made, the
subject has to pick up the card immediately and place it in the correct compartment. The subject
has to work as fast as possible, and try reducing the time taken to sort from trail to trail. But,
he/she must not sacrifice accuracy of speed. Instruct the subject to begin, and start the stop clock
simultaneously. Give five such trails and note down the time taken in each trail.

Series 2: On the sixth trail, section B of the tray is placed before the subject. The subject
is asked to sort the cards again. The time taken is noted.

Instruction

With the signal ‘start’ start sorting the cards into their respective compartments of the
tray. Whenever you place a card in the wrong compartment, place it back correctly. Work fast.

Analysis of the result

1. The time score of the sixth trial is compared with that of the fifth trial for evidence of
negative transfer of learning for the subject.

2. The average time score of the 6th trail is compared with the mean of the 5th trail for the
group.

3. The time scores for all the six trails are plotted on a graph, both for the individual and
group.
Introspection Report

The subject reported that the habit formation was facilitated with visual memory and that
the fluctuations (increasing trend) were due to decreased motivation levels.

Results and Discussions

The aim of the experiment is to study negative transfer of training with the help of Card
Sorting. This is studied through habit formation. It was hypothesized that habit formation
negatively influences new learning. The subject is trained to acquire the habit of Card Sorting
through sufficient practice of the voluntary action of sorting cards according to the design in
specific compartment of a board.

Table 1. Showing the time (in seconds) taken to complete each trial by the subject

Name Trials
Section A Section B
1 2 3 4 5 6
M.S.B 33 35 26 25 26 31

The experiment was conducted on subject M.S.B, 20 years old undergraduate student and
the results are shown in Table 1. In Section A (5 trials) in which the designs on the sorting tray
was kept constant, it was observed that by the end of the 5th trial the subject had formed a habit
indicated by the lesser amount of time taken to sort the cards with slight fluctuations (opposite
trend) in trial 2 and 5. In Section B, the 6th trial, in which there is a change in the sequence of the
compartment of the sorting tray, the subject took 31 seconds which is higher than the time taken
after forming the habit (26 seconds). Thus the subject’s results confirm the hypothesis that the
previously learned habit for the designs on the tray disrupted the performance of the subject on a
subsequent task and this is graphically represented using a line diagram in Graph 1.

Table 2. Showing the time (in seconds) taken to complete each trial by the group

S.No Name Trials

Section A Section B
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 S.G 35 25 30 35 32 37
2 S.K 45 32 25 26 24 34
3 H.G 36 25 23 24 26 23
4 A.K 33 25 28 26 26 33
5 S.S 37 30 29 27 30 30
6 S.S.S 35 31 23 25 24 27
7 A.R 33 24 24 23 24 24
8 P.K 37 30 24 24 25 27
9 S.T 20 23 22 22 21 35
10 A.A 29 23 26 21 26 25
11 H.K 27 26 25 24 23 28
12 M.J 28 25 25 26 22 28
Total 375 319 304 303 303 351
Mean 31.25 26.58 25.34 25.25 25.25 29.25

The experiment was conducted on a group of 12 undergraduate students, 2 males and 10

females aged from 18- 21 years and the results are shown in Table 2. In Section A which
includes 5 trials, the group has obtained mean scores of 31.25, 26.58, 25.34, 24.34, 25.25 and
29.25 (in seconds) respectively on each trial indicating that a habit was formed as the mean time
taken shows a decreasing trend. In Section B, 6th trial, the group obtained a mean time of 29.25
seconds, greater than the mean time obtained in the 5th trial (25.25 seconds). Thus the results of
the group conforms the hypothesis and this is graphically represented using a line diagram in
Graph 2.
 Individual differences are found in the group. The subjects H.G and A.A showed a
decrease in time in the 6th trial compared to the 5th trial and subjects S.S and A.R showed no
difference between the time taken in the 5th trial and the 6th trial. This could be attributed to the
subject’s prior awareness of the sequence of designs in the 6th trial and the time taken for
shuffling the cards between each trial.

Conclusion

1. The subject M.S.B’s results confirmed the hypothesis

2. The group’s results as a whole confirmed the hypothesis

3. There are individual differences in the group

References

Andrews, B. R. (1903)."Habit" The American Journal of Psychology (University of Illinois

Press)

Interference theory. Retrieved June 26, 2016, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_theory

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Stroop (1935), Retrieved June 26, 2016, from
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop/

CloudDeakin. Retrieved June 26, 2016, from

https://d2l.deakin.edu.au/d2l/eP/presentations/presentation_preview_popup.d2l?presId=95665