Abstract
A frequent assumption in the area of prospective memory is that a reminder to do an activity in the future improves the likelihood of doing the activity. The results of four experiments indicated, however, that the most general version of this assumption is incorrect. Subjects were either reminded of a prospective memory task several times during a retention interval or not reminded of the prospective memory task. The most effective reminders referred both to the prospective memory target events and to the intended activity. Reminders that referred only to the target events did not improve prospective memory (relative to a no-reminder control). Reminders that referred only to the intended activity did improve prospective memory, but not to the level of reminders that referred both to the target events and to the intended activity. Instructions to imagine oneself performing the prospective memory task did not further improve prospective memory. Neither the delay between the prospective memory instructions and the prospective memory cover task nor the delay between a reminder and a prospective memory target event significantly influenced performance. The results, which are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications, support a new theory of prospective memory and suggest surprising conditions under which reminders fail to benefit prospective memory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brandimonte, M. A., &Passolunghi, M. C. (1994). The effect of cue-familiarity, cue-distinctiveness, and retention interval on prospective remembering.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 565–587.
Burkes, M. (1994, July).The effect of local context on prospective memory performance in a semantic processing task. Paper presented at the Practical Aspects of Memory Conference, College Park, MD.
Ceci, S. J., &Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985). “Don’t forget to take the cupcakes out of the oven”: Prospective memory, strategic time-monitoring, and context.Child Development,56, 152–164.
Derogotis, L. R. (1977).SCL-90R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual-I. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Einstein, G. O., Holland, L. J., McDaniel, M. A., &Guynn, M. J. (1992). Age related deficits in prospective memory: The influence of task complexity.Psychology & Aging,7, 471–478.
Einstein, G. O., &McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 717–726.
Einstein, G. O., &McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Richardson, S. L., Guynn, M. J., &Cunfer, A. R. (1995). Aging and prospective memory: Examining the influences of self-initiated retrieval processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 996–1007.
Ellis, J. A. (1996). Prospective memory or the realization of delayed intentions: A conceptual framework for research. In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., Mohr, G., &Sellen, O. (1994). Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition.Memory & Cognition,22, 34–39.
Goschke, T., &Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 1211–1226.
Goschke, T., &Kuhl, J. (1996). Remembering what to do: Explicit and implicit memory for intentions. In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 53–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, J. E., &Wilkins, A. J. (1982). Remembering to do things: A theoretical framework and an illustrative experiment.Human Learning,1, 123–136.
Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H., &Nussbaum, A. (1990). Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks.Memory & Cognition,18, 568–578.
Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the action-control scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47–59). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Kvavilashvili, L. (1987). Remembering intention as a distinct form of memory.British Journal of Psychology,78, 507–518.
Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.
Mäntylä, T. (1993). Priming effects in prospective memory.Memory,1, 203–218.
Mäntylä, T. (1996). Activating actions and interrupting intentions: Mechanisms of retrieval sensitization in prospective memory. In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 93–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maylor, E. A. (1990). Age and prospective memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42A, 471–493.
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. (1996, April).Prospective memory: No longer forgotten. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Park City, UT.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1993). The importance of cue familiarity and cue distinctiveness in prospective memory.Memory,1, 23–41.
McDaniel, M. A., Glisky, E. L., Rubin, S. R., Guynn, M. J., & Routhieaux, B. C. (1998).Prospective memory: A neuropsychological study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
McDaniel, M. A., Robinson-Riegler, B., &Einstein, G. O. (1998). Prospective remembering: Perceptually driven or conceptually driven processes?Memory & Cognition,26, 121–134.
Meacham, J. A., &Leiman, B. (1982). Remembering to perform future actions. In U. Neisser (Ed.),Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts (pp. 327–336). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
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 1994 (pp. 269–310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roediger, H. L., III,Weldon, M. S., Stadler, M. L., &Riegler, G. L. (1992). Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: Word fragment and word stem completion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1251–1269.
Semon, R. (1904).Die Mneme als erhaltendes Prinzip im Wechsel des organischen Geschehens. Leipzig: William Engelmann.
Tulving, E. (1983).Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vortac, O. U., Edwards, M. B., &Manning, C. A. (1995). Functions of external cues in prospective memory.Memory,3, 201–219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to M.J.G., National Institute on Aging (NIA) Grant AGO5627 to M.A.M., and Grant AF 49620-92-J-0437 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to Henry L. Roediger III. In addition, preparation of this article was supported in part by NIA Grant AGO8436 to G.O.E. and M.A.M.
—Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guynn, M.J., Mcdaniel, M.A. & Einstein, G.O. Prospective memory: When reminders fail. Mem Cogn 26, 287–298 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201140
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201140