Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Engle, Randall W · 2000 · OpenAlex

DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.2.336

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the relationship between individual differences in working-memory (WM) capacity and susceptibility to proactive interference (PI), specifically examining whether controlled attention mediates this relationship. The authors address the theoretical proposition that WM capacity reflects the ability to use controlled attention to prevent distraction and interference from long-term memory. Previous research had shown weak correlations between short-term memory span and interference, but stronger evidence suggested that high-WM individuals are less vulnerable to interference than low-WM individuals. This study tests whether high-WM participants actively use attentional resources to combat PI and whether dividing attention disrupts this protective mechanism. Two experiments were conducted using a PI-buildup task where participants recalled words from four consecutive lists. Participants were screened for WM capacity using the operation-word span task and divided into high-span and low-span groups. In Experiment 1, participants performed a concurrent finger-tapping task (either a complex sequence imposing attentional load or a simple cascade sequence serving as no-load control) during both encoding and retrieval of each list. Experiment 2 manipulated whether the tapping load occurred during encoding or retrieval to isolate attentional demands. A rehearsal-prevention task (oral Trail-Making) was used between lists to minimize maintenance rehearsal. The results demonstrated that under no-load conditions, low-WM participants exhibited significantly greater PI than high-WM participants, indicating higher susceptibility to interference. However, under divided-attention conditions, this difference disappeared; high- and low-WM groups showed equivalent levels of PI. Crucially, the attentional load increased PI susceptibility only for high-WM participants, while low-WM participants’ PI remained unchanged regardless of load. In Experiment 2, only low-WM participants showed a dual-task cost on the initial list (List 1) before PI had built up. These findings indicate that high-WM individuals normally employ controlled attention, likely involving inhibitory processes, at both encoding and retrieval to resist interference. When attention is divided, high-WM individuals lose this advantage, performing as poorly as low-WM individuals. Conversely, low-WM individuals do not utilize controlled attention to combat PI under standard conditions, rendering them unaffected by additional attentional load. The significance of these findings lies in supporting the view that working-memory capacity is fundamentally linked to the ability to deploy controlled attention to manage interference. The results suggest that the prefrontal cortex, associated with executive functions, plays a critical role in this process. High-WM individuals actively inhibit interfering information from long-term memory, whereas low-WM individuals rely on more automatic processes that are susceptible to interference but resistant to divided attention. This clarifies the functional role of the central executive in memory retrieval and highlights the attentional mechanisms underlying individual differences in cognitive performance.

Key finding

Divided attention increased proactive interference for high-working-memory-span participants but had no effect on low-span participants, resulting in equivalent interference levels for both groups under load.

Methodology

lab_experiment

Sample size: 192

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via openalex_abstract on 2026-05-08 (13 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• prospective memory interruptions