A wrong retrieval target is the other lesson’s item. OpenStax describes proactive interference as old information that hinders recall of newly learned information, and retroactive interference as information learned more recently that hinders recall of older information.
Proactive versus retroactive interference examples on this page are labeled from three written cells: the earlier lesson, the later lesson, and the item the question asks you to produce. OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 8.3, published April 22, 2020, defines proactive interference as old information that hinders recall of newly learned information, and retroactive interference as information learned more recently that hinders recall of older information. The Noba memory module by McDermott and Roediger, whose cite line reads 2026, describes proactive interference as past memories that interfere with encoding new ones, and retroactive interference as later activities that interfere with retrieving an older memory. If a scene states a wrong recall and does not state an encoding failure, the direction cell can follow the OpenStax recall wording and the encoding cell stays blank. The cabinet-code scenes below are hypothetical. They are not study results.
- Write the earlier lesson, the later lesson, and the retrieval target in separate cells.
- Label proactive when the target is the later lesson and the produced item is the earlier one.
- Label retroactive when the target is the earlier lesson and the produced item is the later one.
- Leave the direction cell blank when the target, the second lesson, or the produced item is missing.
- Keep the encoding cell blank unless the note itself says encoding failed.
The Learning and Memory guide is the topic home for this page. The memory demonstration cards record a word-list response. They answer a different question from this timeline. The study reading sheet is the next pass when a heading names a study this page did not read.
What do the two labels require?
OpenStax, in section 8.3, says some information is stored and still inaccessible, and it names that inaccessibility interference. The same section’s Figure 8.17 caption says forgetting can come from a failure to retrieve information, and that the failure can be retroactive or proactive. The recall direction in that section is the one this card uses.
| Source, read for this page | Proactive | Retroactive | Cell this page will fill from it |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 8.3, published April 22, 2020, saved text fetched October 11, 2026 | Old information hinders the recall of newly learned information | Information learned more recently hinders the recall of older information | Direction, when the note states the target and the item produced |
| Noba, McDermott and Roediger, cite line 2026, saved page fetched October 11, 2026 | Past memories interfere with the encoding of new ones | New activities during the retention interval interfere with retrieving the specific older memory | Encoding only if the note states an encoding problem. Direction for an older target can also follow this retrieval wording |
| tutor2u topic page, saved text fetched October 11, 2026 | Not stated in the fetched body. A heading names Keppel and Underwood (1962) without procedure or results | Learning of new information interferes with the recall of old information from long-term memory | Retroactive direction for a stated older target. Keppel and Underwood cells stay blank |
| MyTutor answer by Edward F., saved fallback text from the October 11, 2026 research file. A direct fetch of the page returned 403 | Older memories disrupt more recent memories | A newer memory disrupts an older memory | Direction, after the target is written. The prefix mnemonic in the last section comes from this answer |
The Noba module also says the effect of interference is expressed when memories are retrieved, and its glossary line says events after the event of interest will usually cause forgetting of the original event. That glossary line is the module’s wording. This page did not read McGeoch (1932), whom the module cites for the claim that retroactive interference is one of the main causes of forgetting.
Takeaway: Copy the source sentence that matches the cell you are filling, and leave the other cells as the note left them.
How do you fill the retrieval-target timeline?
Use four steps, in this order. The step count is the card on this page. It is an editorial study check, and it is not a named laboratory procedure.
- Write the earlier lesson in the note’s words.
- Write the later lesson in the note’s words.
- Write the retrieval target: the item the question asks you to produce.
- Write the item that was produced, if the note states one, and only then choose a direction.
A tan stack of blank cards sits on the left of a wooden desk. A white stack of blank cards sits on the right. A closed notebook is behind the stacks, and a wooden pencil lies to the right.
On this page the tan stack stands for the earlier lesson and the white stack stands for the later lesson. The cards themselves are blank. They do not show a code, a score, or a time.
OpenStax illustrates proactive interference with a new phone number or address when the old one is the item you tell people, and with writing the previous year after the new year starts. It illustrates retroactive interference with studying Erikson’s theory after the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve and then having trouble remembering Ebbinghaus. tutor2u illustrates retroactive interference with a new mobile number that makes the old number hard to recall. OpenStax’s phone-number example and tutor2u’s mobile-number example point at opposite targets. This page does not reuse them as the answer key. The cabinet codes below are a separate hypothetical pair.
Takeaway: The direction waits until the target cell and the produced-item cell are both filled.
What changes when the same two lessons swap targets?
The scene is hypothetical. No student was tested, and no code was scored.
Earlier lesson: on Monday the student learns the art-room cabinet code. Later lesson: on Thursday the student learns the gym-cage code. Monday and Thursday are the order in this made-up scene. They are not a measured retention interval.
| Cell | Target is Thursday’s gym-cage code | Target is Monday’s art-room code |
|---|---|---|
| Earlier lesson | Monday, art-room cabinet code | Monday, art-room cabinet code |
| Later lesson | Thursday, gym-cage code | Thursday, gym-cage code |
| Retrieval target | Gym-cage code | Art-room cabinet code |
| Item produced | Art-room cabinet code | Gym-cage code |
| Direction | Proactive. The earlier code is what comes out when the later code is the target. OpenStax’s recall wording fits this row | Retroactive. The later code is what comes out when the earlier code is the target. OpenStax, the Noba retrieval wording, tutor2u, and the MyTutor answer agree on this direction |
| Encoding | Not stated | Not stated |
The white stack sits in front. The tan stack is behind it, farther from the front edge of the desk.
The white stack forward matches the first row’s target, the later lesson. The produced item in that row is the tan stack’s lesson.
The tan stack sits in front. The white stack is behind it.
The tan stack forward matches the second row’s target, the earlier lesson. The produced item in that row is the white stack’s lesson.
The same two lessons support both labels. The label follows the target. Noba’s proactive sentence is about encoding. Neither row says the Thursday code failed to be encoded, so both encoding cells stay blank.
Edward F. writes that interference is worst when the memories are most similar. The two codes in this scene are both cabinet codes, which is why the scene can show a swap. His answer gives no similarity score and no cutoff. This page does not add one.
Takeaway: Swap the target, keep the two lessons, and read the direction from the new target.
Which notes leave the direction cell blank?
A missed code, by itself, does not identify interference. OpenStax treats interference as one account of material that is stored and still inaccessible. A note that never states a second lesson, a target, or the other lesson as the item produced does not meet that account.
| Note, all hypothetical | Earlier lesson | Later lesson | Retrieval target | Item produced | Direction | Encoding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only the art-room code was learned, and it is not produced | Art-room cabinet code | Not stated | Art-room cabinet code | Not the art-room code; no other code is named | Not stated | Not stated |
| “The two codes got mixed up.” | Art-room cabinet code | Gym-cage code | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated |
| Each code is produced when it is asked | Art-room cabinet code | Gym-cage code | The code named in that question | The code that was asked for | Not stated. Both targets were produced | Not stated |
| The gym-cage code is asked for, and the reply is “I don’t know” | Art-room cabinet code | Gym-cage code | Gym-cage code | No code. The art-room code is not what was produced | Not stated | Not stated |
One tan stack of blank cards sits on the desk. A closed notebook is behind it. No second stack is in the frame.
The single stack matches the first row: one lesson is on the desk, and the later lesson is absent. The direction cell stays blank.
Common mistake: Treating “retro” as the older memory doing the interfering, or treating any forgotten code as interference, before the target and the produced item are written down.
The memory demonstration page is where a word-list response gets its own record. A blank cell on this timeline is not a score from those cards.
Takeaway: An empty target, a missing second lesson, or a produced item that is not the other lesson keeps the direction blank.
What does the prefix mnemonic still need?
Edward F.’s MyTutor answer says people mix the labels up because retro is associated with something old. His own memory aid treats retro as old or outdated, and reads that as the older memory being replaced by the newer one. He treats pro as similar to pre, a previous memory disrupting the newer memory you want.
That aid points at a direction only after step 3. If the retrieval target is the later lesson, his “pro” reading matches the OpenStax proactive wording: the previous lesson disrupts the newer one. If the retrieval target is the earlier lesson, his “retro” reading matches the OpenStax retroactive wording: the newer lesson disrupts the older one. If the target cell says “Not stated,” the prefix has no item to point at. Stop at the blank cell.
The fetched tutor2u body defines retroactive interference and does not give this mnemonic. It also does not give Keppel and Underwood’s procedure or results. Use the study reading sheet before you treat that heading as a finding.
Takeaway: Use the prefix after the target is written. A blank target leaves the mnemonic unused.
Method and sources
The OpenStax definitions, the stored-but-inaccessible wording, and the Figure 8.17 caption were read in Psychology 2e, section 8.3, by Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, and Marilyn D. Lovett, published April 22, 2020. The saved page text was fetched on October 11, 2026, and read on October 14, 2026. The phone-number, new-year, Ebbinghaus, and Erikson examples appear in that section. They are not the worked scenes on this page.
The Noba definitions, the statement that the effect is expressed at retrieval, the glossary line on later events, and the McGeoch (1932) citation were read in the module Memory (Encoding, Storage, Retrieval). The saved page was fetched on October 11, 2026, and read on October 14, 2026. The module’s cite line reads McDermott and Roediger (2026). McGeoch (1932) was not read for this page. The module’s lunch example and second-language example were not reused as this page’s answer key.
The tutor2u retroactive definition and the Keppel and Underwood heading were read in the saved topic page fetched on October 11, 2026. The fetched body does not include that study. The mobile-number sentence on that page is their retroactive example, and it is not a row in the cabinet-code table.
The MyTutor direction sentences, the similarity sentence, and the retro/pro prefix aid were read from the saved web-fallback text in the October 11, 2026 research file. A direct request for that answer page returned HTTP 403, so this page uses the saved fallback wording and does not add details the fallback text lacks.
The photographs, the four-step card, the cabinet-code table, and the blank-cell notes are original. No recall rate, delay, or similarity score was measured for this page.
This page is a study aid from Intro Psych Resources, an independent psychology learning site. It is not a continuation of the earlier wiki, and it is not affiliated with Los Angeles City College or Amy Sweetman. It does not assess or treat any psychological or medical condition.
Takeaway: Keep the textbook sentence, the tutor answer, and the hypothetical row in separate cells.
