Abstract
The preparatory attentional and memory processes theory of prospective memory (PM) assumes that PM retrieval requires resource-demanding preparatory attentional processes, whereas the multiprocess theory assumes that retrieval can also occur spontaneously. On the basis of showing slowing on an ongoing task (i.e., task interference) —even when the PM cue was highly salient (i.e., the participant’s own name) —Smith, Hunt, McVay, and McConnell (2007) concluded that preparatory attentional processes are always necessary for PM retrieval. We argue that the presence of preparatory attentional processes cannot be used to rule out the existence of spontaneous retrieval processes, and the goal of the present research was to examine whether PM retrieval can occur in the absence of preparatory attentional processes. We varied whether we emphasized the importance of the PM task or the ongoing task, and we assessed task interference across quarters of the ongoing task. Our results showed no evidence of task interference and, hence, no evidence of preparatory attentional processes in the periods proximal to the target event, and yet participants showed high PM performance. Thus, the results suggest the existence of spontaneous retrieval processes and support the multiprocess theory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.
Cohen, A.-L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149–156. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.149
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Prospective memory and metamemory: The skilled use of basic attentional and memory processes. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 48, pp. 145–173). San Diego: Academic Press.
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2010). Prospective memory and what costs do not reveal about retrieval processes: A commentary on Smith, Hunt, McVay, and McConnell (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 1082–1088.
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.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Foster, E. R., McDaniel, M. A., Repovš, G., & Hershey, T. (2009). Prospective memory in Parkinson disease across laboratory and selfreported everyday performance. Neuropsychology, 23, 347–358. doi:10.1037/a0014692
Gilbert, S. J., Gollwitzer, P. M., Cohen, A.-L., Oettingen, G., & Burgess, P. W. (2009). Separable brain systems supporting cued versus self-initiated realization of delayed intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 905–915. doi:10.1037/a0015535
Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1211–1226.
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 & Language, 53, 430–444.
Hunt, R. R., & Toth, J. P. (1990). Perceptual identification, fragment completion, and free recall: Concepts and data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 282–290.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Kuhl, J. (1994). Motivation and volition. In G. d’Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2. The state of the art (pp. 311–340). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Loft, S., Kearney, R., & Remington, R. (2008). Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? Memory & Cognition, 36, 139–148.
Loft, S., & Yeo, G. (2007). An investigation into the resource requirements of event-based prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 263–274.
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.
Marsh, R., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 336–349.
Marsh, R., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 68–75.
Marsh, R., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G., Hansen, J., & Pallos, A. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 861–870.
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., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, & Cognition, 30, 605–614.
McNerney, M. W., & West, R. (2007). An imperfect relationship between prospective memory and the prospective interference effect. Memory & Cognition, 35, 275–282.
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, Memory systems (pp. 269–310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Control of cost in prospective memory: Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 190–203. doi:10.1037/a0017732
Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 736–749. doi:10.1037/a0018971
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.
Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C., & McConnell, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 734–746.
West, R., & Craik, F. (1999). Age-related decline in prospective memory: The role of cue accessibility and cue sensitivity. Psychology & Aging, 14, 264–272. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.14.2.264
West, R., Krompinger, J., & Bowry, R. (2005). Disruptions of preparatory attention contribute to failures of prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 502–507.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancyattribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 3–13. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.3
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Portions of this research were presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Furman Advantage Program.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrison, T.L., Einstein, G.O. Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue?. Memory & Cognition 38, 860–867 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.860
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.860