Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation intentions about nonfocal event-based prospective memory tasks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research PRPF Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Implementation intentions are detailed and systematic plans that are developed during intention formation. We compared two different implementation intentions to standard event-based prospective memory instructions using three different kinds of intentions. Two of these intentions involved nonfocal cues whereas the remaining intention was about specific, focal cues. Implementation intentions dramatically increased detection performance for the nonfocal intentions. Because the exact cues could not be specified during intention formation, we argue that cue salience and that strengthening the cue to target action association are not very viable mechanisms to explain all instances of the beneficial consequences of forming implementation intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also analyzed task interference for the word trials in the temporal vicinity of successful cue detection (i.e., within ten total lexical decision trials before cue detection). The reaction times for these trials were statistically equivalent to the overall latencies across all nine conditions in the three experiments that we have reported here. This outcome of latencies in the vicinity of cue detection replicates our previously published work that also found no such differences (i.e., Hicks et al. 2005). However, we acknowledge that there is one report that may differ in this conclusion (see West, Krompinger, & Bowry, 2005).

References

  • Chasteen, A. L., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2001). Implementation intentions and facilitation of prospective memory. Psychological Science, 12, 457–461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). The cost of remembering to remember: Cognitive load and implementation intentions influence ongoing task performance. In M. Kleigel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives (pp. 367–390). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., et al. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Williford, C. L., Pagan, J. L., & Dismukes, R. K. (2003). Forgetting of intentions in demanding situations is rapid. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 147–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J. A. (2008). Ten years on: Realizing delayed intentions. In M. Kleigel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives (pp. 1–27). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Ellis, J., Kvavilashvili, L., & Milne, A. (1999). Experimental tests of prospective remembering: The influence of cue-event frequency on performance. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 9–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J., & Milne, A. (1996). Retrieval cue specificity and the realization of delayed intentions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 862–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intention: Strong effects of simple of plan. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M., & Schaal, B. (1998). Metacognition in action: The importance of implementation intentions. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2, 124–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guynn, M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Target pre-exposure eliminates the effect of distraction on event-based prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 484–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. L., Marsh, R. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2001). Varying the importance of a prospective memory task: Differential effects across time- and event-based prospective memory. Memory, 9, 1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.

  • Liu, L. L., & Park, D. C. (2004). Aging and medical adherence: The use of automatic processes to achieve effortful things. Psychology and Aging, 19, 318–325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntylä, T. (1993). Priming effects in prospective memory. Memory, 1, 203–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., & Hicks, J. L. (2006). Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1636–1643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 68–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2008). On beginning to understand the role of context in prospective memory. In: M. Kliegel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives (pp. 77–100). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., Hansen, J. S., & Pallos, A. L. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 861–870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Landau, J. D. (1998). An investigation of everyday prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 633–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Watson, V. (2002). The dynamics of intention retrieval and coordination of action in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 652–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maylor, E. A. (1996). Age-related impairment in an event-based prospective memory task. Psychology and Aging, 11, 74–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maylor, E. A. (1998). Changes in event-based prospective memory across the adulthood. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 5, 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–S144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O., & Breneiser, J. (2004). Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 605–614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Butler, K. (2008). Implementation intentions facilitate prospective memory under high attention demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 716–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovitch, M. (1994). Memory and working with memory: Evaluation of a component process model and comparisons with other models. In D. L. Schacter & E. Tulving (Eds.), Memory systems (pp. 260–310). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, S., Hodgkins, S., & Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementation intentions and the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9), 953–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Implementation intentions and repeated behaviours: Enhancing the predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 349–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trötschel, R., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2007). Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 579–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego depletion? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R., Krompinger, J., & Bowry, R. (2005). Disruptions of preparatory attention contribute to failures of prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 502–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, E. (1988). Some observations on prospective remembering. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues (Vol. 2, pp. 348–353). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Candace Miller and Jesse Lynch for their dedicated help in collecting the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602-3013, USA

    J. Thadeus Meeks & Richard L. Marsh

Authors
  1. J. Thadeus Meeks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard L. Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Marsh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meeks, J.T., Marsh, R.L. Implementation intentions about nonfocal event-based prospective memory tasks. Psychological Research 74, 82–89 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0223-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0223-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation