HABIT INTERFERENCE

Experiment No. 2 Date:12/02/2024

Experimenter: E.T.V. Subject:A.M.E

Introduction:

A habit, from the standpoint of psychology, is a more or less fixed way of thinking,
willingness or feeling acquired through previous repetition of a mental experience (Andrews,
1903). The process by which new behaviours become automatic is habit formation. Old habits
are hard to break and new habits are hard to form because the behavioural patterns we repeat are
imprinted in our neural pathways, but it is possible to form new habits through repetition. As
behaviours 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 behaviour in that
context. Interference is a phenomenon of human memory involving the learning of new material
where the learning of new information or behaviour 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 a 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
before the materials are remembered (“Interference theory”, n.d.). Proactive interference occurs
when, in any given context, memories inhibit an individual’s full potential to retain new
memories. It has been hypothesised that forgetting working memories would be non-existent
without 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 results from 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 practised 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 physiologists before 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 to 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’s (1954) study modelled 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 labelled 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’s (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.

Limitations

Habit interference experiments, while invaluable for understanding behaviour, come with
inherent limitations. Controlled lab settings might not fully mirror real-world complexities,
potentially limiting the applicability of findings. Many studies focus on short-term dynamics,
overlooking the long-term evolution of habits. Artificial manipulations employed in experiments
may not faithfully replicate the natural processes involved in habit formation and interference.
Participant behaviour can be influenced by demand characteristics, introducing biases. Limited
sample diversity may hinder the generalizability of results. Reliance on self-report measures for
habit assessment introduces potential reporting biases. Ethical constraints may restrict the extent
to which researchers can manipulate individual habits. The multifaceted nature of habits may be
oversimplified in experimental designs. Individual differences in susceptibility to habit
interference may not always be adequately considered. Additionally, publication bias towards
positive results can skew the overall understanding of habit interference. Acknowledging these
limitations is essential for refining experimental designs and interpreting findings judiciously.

Methodology:

Problem :

To study the 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 the wrong compartment, he/she has to rectify
the mistake.

Plan:

Experiment with two series, and compare the time scores.

Materials:

1. Card sorting tray with two sections A and B. Each is 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 a 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 the subject is asked to hold the cards
face-up. The subject is instructed that the pack of cards have different designs. Section 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 to reduce 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.

Instructions:

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.

Introspection Report:

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

Results and Discussions:

The experiment aims to study the 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 a
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
A.M.E 33.3 27.5 24.7 25.4 26.2 28.4

The experiment was conducted on subject A.M.E. 18 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 were 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 28.4 seconds which is higher
than the time taken after forming the habit (24.7 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

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

Time Taken (in seconds)

Experimenter Section
Section A
B
1 2 3 4 5 6
33.3 27.5 24.7 25.4 26.2 28.4
2333801 Adheena Merin Eapen
Mean = 27.4

41.3 36.5 35.4 35.3 30.3 41

2333802 Aditi Sihmar
Mean = 42.5

2333803 Aditya Shaji

Mean =

32.13 26.24 28.37 28.09 27.88 26.56

2333804 Advay Sarma
Mean = 28.542

30 32 29 29 26 28
Chavali Sri Saraswathy
2333821
Harapriya Mean = 28.6

33.11 28.25 27.26 25.36 26.66 32.13

2333826 Farhan Sajeeb
Mean = 28.12

38.25 32.32 31.99 32.23 27.81 38.24

2333829 Ishanvi Rai
Mean = 32.52

30.43 32.28 25.53 29.92 26.34 30.49

2333830 Jia Sarah Jai
Mean = 28.9
2333838 Likhitha C
Mean =

30.4 32.6 28 27.6 26.9 38

2333840 Mitali Chauhan
Mean = 30.5

2333846 Nisha Karandikar

Mean =

34.99 38.89 33.41 31.83 33.17 32.02

2333847 Nishtha Anand
Mean =34.45

36 31 30.91 30.05 30.12 30.77

2333852 Rachael Dsouza
Mean = 31.81

42 38 35 29 29 38
2333853 Rachaita Sao
Mean = 34.6

35 30.07 30.75 33.16 27.08 28.01

2333854 Raghavi R
Mean = 31.21

34.28 29.5 32.11 26.17 29.7 24.74

2333855 Rakshitha K
Mean = 30.35

25.8 24.08 26 24.63 24.2 25.5

Shukla Sneha
2333877
Deepakkumar Mean = 24.94

42 35 34 35 35 38
2333878 Sneha Agrawal
Mean = 36

34.7 27.2 30.2 26.3 26.1 25.1

2333879 Sneha S Raghavan
Mean = 28.9

42 39 35 33 32 34
2333882 Srinithi Ramesh
Mean = 35.83

2333883 Suhani Dania 47 29 31 27 25 27

 Mean = 31.8

2333884 Sumiran Srivastava

Mean =

30 29 24 25 24 27
2333885 Swathi Suraj
26.4

2333891 Vivain Honnalli

Mean =

53 44 37 26 24 25
2333893 Keshar Shetty
Mean = 34.83

2333894 Kshitij Sharma

Mean =

33 35 33 34 36 36
2333901 A Sri Meghana
Mean = 34.5

33 32 34 36 33 34
2333903 Aanandita Talwar
Mean = 33.6

39 37 35 32 28 36
2333904 Abhi Mariam Aju
Mean = 34.2

35s 33s 32s 32s 33s 34

2333905 Adithyan P S
Mean = 39.8

30s 32s 29s 32s 33s 29s

2333906 Aditi Anil Kulkarni
Mean = 31.2

2333915 Sushom Sunil Bhandare

Mean =

2333916 Brenda Ryan P 59se 49sec 52sec 57se 47sec 51

c c
 Mean = 52.5

2333922 Dhiraj Nanda Kumar

Mean =

2333923 Dipannita Saha

Mean =

21 26
2333926 Eva Tony Varghese
Mean =

44 46 39 52 50 48
2333928 Gowri Krishna
Mean = 46.2

52 49 52 57 47 51
Hiteshree Manoj
2333932
Nagarnaik Mean = 51.4

23 23 19 23 23 24
2333935 Jayasree Ramakrishnan
Mean = 22.2

2333939 Ken Saraf

Mean =

2333940 Khushi A Patil

Mean =

2333942 Kuvira Gogoi

Mean =

2333947 Liyana Jaimon

Mean =

2333952 Misha Anna Mathews

Mean =

2333954 Nikshata Jain

Mean =
2333955 Nitika Agarwal
Mean =

2333957 Prakhar Agrawal

Mean =

22.11 20.32 20.42 20.63 17.97 22.98

2333958 Prisha Madan
Mean = 20.73

32 31 29 30 29 30
2333976 Sikha Shaji
Mean = 30.2

30s 27s 25s 23s 24s 28s

2333977 Siona Maria S
Mean = 25.8s

30s 36s 31s 26s 27s 34s

2333978 Soumyashree Srinivasan
Mean = 30

2333979 Surya B
Mean =

2333985 Totinee Rudra

Mean =

2333990 Vihaan Vikram Kulkarni

Mean =

75se 29se
42sec 28sec 32sec 24sec
c c
2333991 Vishesh K
Mean = 38.3

2333992 Vriti Jain

Mean =

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