Associations are confusable when they share an item. For example, double-function pairs (with the form AB, BC) are harder to remember than control pairs. Although ambiguous pairs are more difficult on average, it is not clear whether memories for associations compete directly with one another (associative competition hypothesis), as assumed by models that incorporate associative symmetry (bidirectional associations). Alternatively, associative interference results might be explained away by: (a) item suppression hypothesis: competition only between memory for the two target items (A and C are both targets of B); (b) candidate competition hypothesis: The cue (B) retrieves two potential targets, A and C, which compete to be output. These alternative hypotheses could explain previous results in the related, AB/AC learning procedure. Our procedure included a large amount of interference that had to be resolved within a single study set. Participants studied sets of control (single-function) and double-function pairs and were asked to produce one or two associates, respectively, to cue items. Recall of AB and BC were negatively correlated and could not be explained away by item suppression or competition between simultaneously retrieved candidate items. Thus, competition can occur at the level of representation of associations, regardless of which item is the cue, consistent with associative symmetry.
Keywords: Associative interference; Associative symmetry; Double-function lists; Interference; Paired-associate learning.