Abstract
Discrepancy processes may be helpful in noticing prospective memory targets (McDaniel, Guynn, Einstein, & Breneiser, 2004). We manipulated the discrepancy of prospective memory targets from the processing coherence established by the ongoing task by preexposing nontarget items in the ongoing task either five times (high discrepancy) or two times (low discrepancy). Prospective memory performance was significantly better in the high-discrepancy group than in the low-discrepancy group. These results support a discrepancy view of prospective remembering.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., &Treiman, R. (2002).The English lexicon project: A Web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. Washington University, St. Louis. Available at elexicon.wustl.edu.
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., &Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 159–180.
Einstein, G. O., &McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., &Breneiser, J. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,134, 327–342.
Guynn, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005).Does target-event noticing in prospective memory demand resources? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kelemen, W. L., Weinberg, W. B., Oh, H. S. Y., Sanford, E. K., & Kaeochinda, K. F. (2005).Improving the reliability of event-based laboratory tests of prospective memory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lund, K., &Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 203–208.
Mäntylä, T. (1996). Activating actions and interrupting intentions: Mechanisms of retrieval sensitization in prospective memory. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 93–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., &Bink, M. L. (1998). The activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 350–361.
McDaniel, M. A. (1995). Prospective memory: Progress and processes. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 33, pp. 191–221). San Diego: Academic Press.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework.Applied Cognitive Psychology,14, S127-S144.
McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O., &Breneiser, J. E. (2004). Cue focused and automatic-associative processes in prospective memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 605–614.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., &Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,76(1, Pt. 2), 1–25.
Reese, C. M., &Cherry, K. E. (2002). The effects of age, ability, and memory monitoring on prospective memory task performance.Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition,9, 98–113.
Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in eventbased prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 347–361.
Smith, R. E., &Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of eventbased prospective memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 756–777.
Turner, M. L., &Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory task dependent?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 127–154.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Williams, L. D. (2001a). The discrepancyattribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 3–13.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Williams, L. D. (2001b). The discrepancyattribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 14–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The data from this manuscript were presented in part at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, 2005 in Chicago. We note our appreciation for helpful comments by Bruce Whittlesea and Rebekah Smith on previous versions of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Breneiser, J.E., Mcdaniel, M.A. Discrepancy processes in prospective memory retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 837–841 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194006
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194006