This behavioral task indexes the degree to which participants can resist proactive interference from recently encountered but no-longer-relevant information. Participants are asked to remember a small number of items called the target set (e.g., 4 letters) over a short retention interval, followed by a recognition probe (e.g., a single letter). Probes can either be positive (i.e., a member of the target set) or negative (i.e., not a member of the target set). Additionally, probes can be recent (i.e., a member of the target set from the previous trial) or non-recent. Therefore, on a given trial, the probe can be a recent positive (a member of the current trial and the preceding trial memory set), non-recent positive (a member of the current trial but not the preceding trial memory set), recent negative (a member of the preceding trial but not the current trial memory set), or non-recent negative (not a member of the current trial or the preceding trial memory set). Participants are asked to give one response if the probe was part of the memory set for that trial and a different response if the probe was not part of the memory set for that trial. The main dependent measure compares speed and accuracy on recent negative probes to non-recent negative probes, with the typical result being a performance decrement on recent vs non-recent negative probes. This relative performance decrement is evidence of failure to resist proactive interference.
The resistance of proactive interference is a core control-related process (Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Given that cognitive control is an essential aspect of self-regulation (Hofmann, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2012) and that self-regulation is known to influence behaviors, the ability to resist this interference is thus a potential mechanism of behavior change worthy of investigation.
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 133(1), 101-135.
Text Citation: Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(3), 174-180.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email email@example.com.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.