UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Exploratory studies of prospective memory in adults Miller, Jo Ann 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A1 M54.pdf [ 12.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100329.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100329-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100329-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100329-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100329-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100329-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100329-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100329-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100329.ris

Full Text

EXPLORATORY STUDIES OF PROSPECTIVE MEMORY IN ADULTS By JO ANN MILLER B.Sc. (Honors), The University of V i c t o r i a , 1980 M. A., The University of Toronto, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1990 © J o Ann M i l l e r , 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date August 22, 1990 DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Prospective memory refers to remembering to carry out an intended or planned action, such as keeping a doctor's appointment or t e l l i n g a friend about an upcoming party. Despite i t s importance i n everyday l i f e , prospective memory has received l i t t l e empirical or t h e o r e t i c a l attention. Rather, much of the l i t e r a t u r e has focused on retrospective memory, that i s , memory for information learnt i n the past. The current l i t e r a t u r e on prospective memory addresses fi v e aspects that are necessary for carrying out an intended action. These are (a) formulating the plan; (b) having the knowledge necessary to carry out the plan; (c) remembering the plan at the appropriate time; (d) carrying out the plan; and (e) remembering that the plan has been performed. The l i t e r a t u r e also raises three fundamental questions. Namely, whether prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes, whether self-report and behavioral measures of prospective memory are correlated, and whether prospective memory performance varies as a function of age. These questions were the focus of the exploratory studies presented in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . The f i r s t three studies involved the development of a memory diary, a memory questionnaire, and a metamemory questionnaire, respectively. These instruments were used in the fourth and f i f t h studies. Studies 4 and 5 also included behavioral measures of prospective memory and objective measures of retrospective memory. The fourth study examined how community-dwelling adults f e e l about, and use, t h e i r memory on a d a i l y basis. In accordance with previous research, no age differences were observed on the behavioral measures of prospective memory. Moreover, performance on the self-report measures did not d i f f e r as a function of age. As hypothesized, age was correlated with performance on a retrospective memory task. The f i f t h study involved an extension and r e p l i c a t i o n of Study 4, with the major addition being the use of several standard laboratory tests to assess retrospective memory. This study revealed several interesting findings. F i r s t , in contrast to previous studies, performance on some retrospective memory tasks was related to performance on some prospective memory tasks. Second, by and large, s e l f -report and behavioral measures of prospective memory were not correlated. Third, performance on the prospective memory tasks (both s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral) did not vary as a function of age, although performance ' on the retrospective memory tasks was c l e a r l y age related. The implications of t h i s research are discussed. iv Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables x i Acknowledgements x i i i Introduction 1 Successful completion of prospective memory tasks 2 Making the plan . 4 Time frame 5 Task regu l a r i t y 8 Time in t e r v a l 9 Knowledge for carrying out the plan 11 Remembering the plan 12 Time monitoring 13 Use of memory aids 14 Carrying out the plan . .. 16 Fatigue. . . . 17 Procrastination 18 Motivation 19 Incentive 19 Commitment 21 Knowing the plan has been completed 2 3 Summary 2 5 Fundamental questions.. 50 Are prospective and retrospective memory di f f e r e n t ? . . 52 Everyday l i f e 52 Empirical research 53 V Theories 55 Do s e l f - r e p o r t and objective measures of prospective memory correlate? 59 Do young and elde r l y individuals d i f f e r i n t h e i r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to prospective memory f a i l u r e s ? 64 Summary 70 Overview of the present research 72 Study 1 7 3 Study 2 74 Study 3 74 Studies 4 and 5 77 Study 1.-. 80 Method 8 0 Participants 80 Materials and Procedure 80 Results and Discussion 83 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the memory f a i l u r e s . 84 Measures r e l a t i n g to time 86 Importance and pleasantness ratings 87 Use of memory aids .. . 89 Explanations for forgetting and remembering 90 Summary 91 Study 2 93 Method 93 Participants 93 Materials 93 v i Procedure 9 5 Predictions 96 Results 96 Number of memory f a i l u r e s . . 97 Types of responses 98 Frequency data 99 Importance ratings 99 Use of memory aids 99 Discussion 101 Study 3 105 Method 105 Participants 105 Materials and Procedure 106 Results 109 Structure and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Memory Questionnaire 109 Performance as a function of age 115 Discussion 119 Study 4 123 Method 12 3 Participants 123 Materials 124 Self-report measures 124 Behavioral measures 127 Procedure. 127 Summary and predictions 13 0 v i i Scoring . 13 3 Self-report measures 133 Memory diary 133 Memory Failures Questionnaire 133 Memory Questionnaire 133 Behavioral measures 134 Return materials 134 Make phone c a l l s . . . . 135 Complete tasks as specified 135 Follow-up interview 136 Results 136 Co-operation 136 Self-report measures 137 Memory diary 137 Memory Failures Questionnaire 141 Memory Questionnaire 141 Behavioral measures 142 Return materials.. 142 Make phone c a l l s 142 Complete tasks as specified 147 Comparisons between the self-report and behavioral measures of prospective memory.. 149 Follow-up interview 154 Discussion 155 Prospective memory 155 Retrospective memory 158 v i i i Study 5 160 Method 160 Participants 160 Materials 161 Self-report measures 161 Behavioral measures 161 Laboratory tasks 161 Procedure 164 Session 1 165 Session 2 169 Summary and predictions 170 Scoring 172 Self-report measures 172 Memory diary 172 Memory Failures Questionnaire 173 Memory Questionnaire 173 Behavioral measures 173 Return materials 173 Make phone c a l l s 173 Keep appointments 174 Complete tasks as specified 174 Laboratory tasks 17 5 Modified Logical Memory 175 S e r i a l D i g i t Learning... 176 Buschke Cued Recall 176 Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s 176 ix Names and Faces 177 Follow-up interview 177 Results 177 Co-operation 177 Sei f-report measures 178 Memory diary 178 Memory Failures Questionnaire 179 Memory Questionnaire 182 Behavioral measures 186 Return things 186 Make phone c a l l s 187 Keep appointments 187 Complete tasks as sp e c i f i e d 188 Comparisons between the self - r e p o r t and behavioral measures 189 Laboratory tasks 195 Follow-up interview 201 Correlations between the laboratory tasks and the interview 201 Correlations between the prospective and retrospective memory measures 202 Discussion. . 206 Prospective memory measures 209 Retrospective memory measures 212 Prospective and retrospective memory measures 213 General Discussion 216 X Different types of tasks, d i f f e r e n t types of processes 216 Factors a f f e c t i n g prospective memory. 218 A b i l i t i e s involved in remembering an intention 219 The role of non-cognitive factors 221 Intentions versus plans 225 Contributions to other areas 226 P r a c t i c a l implications of prospective memory research 227 References 230 Appendix A. Memory Diary (Study 1) 240 Appendix B. Memory Questionnaire (Study 2) 242 Appendix C. Memory Questionnaire (Study 3) 249 Appendix D. Memory Diary (Studies 4 and 5) 263 Appendix E. Memory Questionnaire (Studies 4 and 5) 265 Appendix F. Interview (Studies 4 and 5) 285 Appendix G. Scoring for Modified Logical Memory Test (Study 5) 287 x i L i s t of Tables Table 1 A summary of the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e 2 6 Table 2 R e l i a b i l i t y of the fi v e scales on the Memory Questionnaire 113 Table 3 Intercorrelations among the f i v e scales on the Memory Questionnaire. . . 114 Table 4 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for scores on the Memory Questionnaire for each age group 117 Table 5 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for scores on the memory diary, the MFQ, the behavioral measures, and the follow-up interview for each age group 138 Table 6 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for scores on the MQ for each administration for each age group 14 3 Table 7 Correlations between the se l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory 151 Table 8 Correlations between scales on the MQ and the se l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory 152 Table 9 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for the memory diary, the MFQ and the behavioral measures for each age group 180 x i i Table 10 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for each scale on the MQ for each age group....183 Table 11 Correlations between the self - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory 191 Table 12 Correlations between scales on the MQ and the self-report and behavioral measures of prospective memory 193 Table 13 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for each of the laboratory tasks and the follow-up interview for each age group 196 Table 14 Correlations between age and the laboratory tasks 198 Table 15 Results of the one-way ANOVAs involving age groups and the laboratory tasks 199 Table 16 Correlations between the follow-up interview and the laboratory tasks 2 03 Table 17 Correlations between the various prospective and retrospective tasks..... 2 04 Table 18 Canonical correlation results of prospective and retrospective measures 207 x i i i Acknowledgements I could not have completed t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n without the support of a number of agencies and individuals. Funding was provided in part by a Grant-in-Aid of Research from Sigma X i , The S c i e n t i f i c Research Society. The assistance of several community organizations i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. I would especially l i k e to thank Mr. Harry Rumley and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. To the members of my committee, Ray Corteen, E r i c Eich, Michael Chapman and Bob Hare, and my "external examiner" at a l l stages, Jennifer Campbell, I extend my appreciation for your i n t e r e s t i n an area in which so l i t t l e i s known. I would also l i k e to thank a l l those individuals who volunteered to parti c i p a t e i n various phases of the project; without them the research would not have been possible. I am gra t e f u l to Katey Connaghan for volunteering to score much of the data in Study 3 and to Lindsay Mullen for her invaluable contributions, p a r t i c u l a r l y in Studies 4 and 5. I also deeply appreciate the moral and e d i t o r i a l support given by Robin Hunter. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my family and Craig for t h e i r u n f a i l i n g love and encouragement over these past few years. 1 INTRODUCTION A book one intended to lend to a colleague i s l e f t on a desk rather than put into a briefcase. An important business c a l l i s remembered after the o f f i c e has closed. A greeting card i s found in a coat pocket a week a f t e r the anniversary. One may rarely forget to carry out intended or planned a c t i v i t i e s such as these, but when such memory f a i l u r e s do occur they may have important consequences. At the very least, they can be embarrassing, annoying or fr u s t r a t i n g . Remembering to carry out an intended or planned action has been termed prospective memory (e.g. Meacham & Dumitru, 197 6). Despite the importance of prospective memory in everyday l i f e , i t has received l i t t l e empirical or the o r e t i c a l attention. (For a summary of the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e , see Table 1 below). Instead, much of the l i t e r a t u r e on memory has focused on what was learned sometime i n the past (retrospective memory). The study of both types of memory has involved diverse approaches. In studies of retrospective memory, participants are generally given e x p l i c i t instructions to r e c a l l or i d e n t i f y previously learned information; what i s of interest i s how much of the information i s remembered. In contrast, i n studies of prospective memory, participants are asked to perform a p a r t i c u l a r action sometime in the future with each ind i v i d u a l providing his or her own cues for r e c a l l (Harris, 2 1984; Wilkins & Baddeley, 1978). In t h i s case, what i s of interest i s whether the intended a c t i v i t y w i l l be remembered (and presumably performed). The study of retrospective memory has been primarily cognitive i n nature; however, such an approach to the study of prospective memory may be inappropriate (Winograd, 1988; see also Meacham, 1988). Winograd (1988) has suggested that the successful analysis of prospective memory involves consideration of many non-cognitive factors (e.g. motivation, commitment, context e f f e c t s ) . He argues that while non-cognitive factors may or may not be involved i n retrospective remembering, they are an integral part of prospective remembering. This becomes evident when the processes involved in executing a planned action are examined. Successful Completion of Prospective Memory Tasks In order to successfully complete a prospective memory task, f i v e conditions must be f u l f i l l e d (cf. Meacham, 1982J. 1 F i r s t , one must intend or plan to do something at some time in the future. Prospective memory thus involves an action as opposed to a thought (although one may think about the action) and the action cannot be performed at the present time (although i t could be ca r r i e d out from seconds 1 Levy and Loftus (1984) have suggested that s i m i l a r conditions are necessary for compliance. As these authors note, however, remembering an intended action i s only one aspect of whether an individual w i l l comply with a request. 3 to months afte r the plan i s made; see Meacham & Leiman, 1982) . Yet, as Winograd (1988) has pointed out, not every future intention constitutes an instance of prospective memory. A task that cannot be completed on one occasion does not involve prospective memory, although prospective memory may be involved i n some components of the task. Planning and remembering to pick up a i r l i n e t i c k e t s from a tr a v e l agency could be considered a prospective memory task, since i n theory, i t can be done on one occasion. Planning and remembering to prepare for an upcoming holiday i s not an example of a prospective memory task, since i t would be done over an extended period of time (cf. Winograd, 1988) . Second, one must have the knowledge necessary to carry out the planned action. For example, i n order to pick up the a i r l i n e t i c k e t s , one must know where a t r a v e l agency i s located. Sinnott (1989a) has termed t h i s type of knowledge "intentional memory". Third, one must remember about the planned action at the appropriate time. Remembering too early or too late i s not s u f f i c i e n t and f a i l u r e to remember at the correct time may have important consequences (Harris, 1984). For example, remembering about the t i c k e t s a f t e r the travel agency has closed may be frustrating and could produce unnecessary delays. Fourth, not only must one remember about the intended action, one must also carry out the plan. F a i l u r e to do so 4 may be due to several factors such as procrastination or lack of motivation. For example, one may remember that the t i c k e t s need to be picked up but may decide that since the tr a v e l agency i s not on the way home from work, the t i c k e t s can be picked up tomorrow or the next day. F i n a l l y , once an intended action has been performed, one must keep a record of the fact that i t has been performed i n order to avoid repeating i t . For example, once one has picked up the a i r l i n e t i c k e t s , he or she must remember that the t i c k e t s have been obtained i n order to avoid buying a second set. The l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to each of these conditions i s reviewed below. Making the plan In order to carry out a prospective memory task, one must f i r s t intend or plan to do something at some point in the future. Although the actual sequence of actions one might follow in carrying out the plan need not be specif i e d , the intention to carry out a pa r t i c u l a r action must be formed. Much of the l i t e r a t u r e on prospective memory has involved asking participants to perform a given task such as Although some readers may feel t h i s condition involves retrospective rather than prospective memory, as indicated late r , an individual cannot f e e l that a prospective memory task has been completed unless he or she has either an internal or external record of having performed the task. 5 making phone c a l l s or mailing postcards at p a r t i c u l a r times. The time frame within which a task needs to be completed may be narrow (e.g. Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985) or wide (e.g. Levy, Yamashita & Pow, 1979). Participants may be asked to do the same task several times during the course of a study. The r e g u l a r i t y with which the task i s to be done can be manipulated (e.g. Meacham & Singer, 1977). Moreover, the in t e r v a l between when one plans to carry out some a c t i v i t y and when the action i s actually completed can be varied (e.g. Lay, 1988) . Each of these manipulations w i l l be considered i n greater d e t a i l below. Time frame. Examination of the eff e c t s of the time frame on prospective memory performance involves consideration of di f f e r e n t types of tasks. Some tasks need to be done at, or by, a sp e c i f i e d time and, i n a very general sense, can be considered appointment keeping tasks (Harris, 1984). Other a c t i v i t i e s need to be performed during the course of a larger set of a c t i v i t i e s . Harris has referred to these as tasks that involve doing one thing before or af t e r another. This i s a more general form of appointment keeping, since doing one thing before or af t e r another involves performing the a c t i v i t y at a p a r t i c u l a r point i n a sequence of a c t i v i t i e s rather than at a sp e c i f i e d time (cf. Einstein & McDaniel's, 1990, d i s t i n c t i o n between event-based and time-based prospective memory tasks and E l l i s ' , 1988, d i s t i n c t i o n between steps and pulses). 6 P a r t i c u l a r scoring c r i t e r i a may make i t d i f f i c u l t to determine whether a study involves appointment keeping or doing one a c t i v i t y before or a f t e r another, even though nominally i t may involve the l a t t e r . For example, nominally, Meacham and Colombo (1980; see also Meacham & Dumitru, 1976) required t h e i r p a r t i c i p a n t s to remember to do one thing (perform the s p e c i f i e d task) before doing something else (leave the experimental room). In fact, these studies are si m i l a r to those involving appointment keeping since the participants were required to do the task by a s p e c i f i e d time (before reaching the door to the room). Studies that have examined the e f f e c t s of time frame on prospective memory performance f a l l into three categories. The f i r s t involves tasks that must be done at, by, or for a s p e c i f i e d time on a s p e c i f i e d day (e.g. Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985; Ceci, Baker & Bronfenbrenner, 1988; Harris & Wilkins, 1982; Moscovitch & Minde, c i t e d by Moscovitch, 1982; Wilkins & Baddeley, 1978). In these studies, pa r t i c i p a n t s were asked to make p a r t i c u l a r responses such as pushing buttons, holding up cards, taking a cake out of the oven, unplugging a battery charger, and making phone c a l l s . The second category includes studies in which partic i p a n t s were asked to perform some task before or a f t e r another. The task needed to be performed either during the course of the study or at the end of the experimental 7 session (e.g. Dobbs & Rule, 1987; K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Loftus, 1971; Meacham & Colombo, 1980; Meacham & Dumitru, 1976; Meacham & Leiman, 1982; West, 1984, 1988). Participants i n these studies were requested to ask the experimenter for something (e.g. a red p e n c i l ) , to remind the experimenter to do something (e.g. open a surprise box, fi n d the data for another participant, make a phone c a l l ) or to remember to do something themselves (e.g. name the state in which they were born, take an envelope with them when they l e f t the room, describe an a c t i v i t y planned for the next day). In a t h i r d class of studies, participants were asked to perform the spe c i f i e d task on, or by, a spe c i f i e d date (e.g. Levy, 1977; Levy et a l . , 1979; Meacham & Leiman, 1982 ; Meacham & Singer, 1977; Orne, 1970; West, 1984, 1988). These studies have t y p i c a l l y involved participants making phone c a l l s or mailing postcards. The time frame within which individuals must perform the s p e c i f i e d task ranges, therefore, from quite short (specified time on a specified day) to r e l a t i v e l y long (by a s p e c i f i e d date). Studies in which participants have been asked to perform an action at some point during a sequence of other a c t i v i t i e s generally involve more s p e c i f i c time frames than those in which they are requested to perform the task on, or at, a p a r t i c u l a r time. But these studies also involve less s p e c i f i c time frames compared to those that 8 involve doing the task on a p a r t i c u l a r date. Thus, task type and time frame have been confounded. Task regularity. Not only may tasks vary with respect to the time frame within which they must be completed, they also vary with respect to how often they must be done. A d i s t i n c t i o n has been made between tasks that are done on a regular basis and those that are done r e l a t i v e l y infrequently (e.g. Meacham & Dumitru, 1976; Meacham & Leiman, 1982; Meacham & Singer, 1977). Habitual prospective memory tasks are a c t i v i t i e s that one engages in on a regular or routine basis. Since environmental cues or preceding a c t i v i t i e s may remind one to perform the intended action, memory for habitual tasks may be improved by integrating the a c t i v i t y within one's d a i l y routine. For example, one i s more l i k e l y to remember to take h i s or her medication twice d a i l y i f i t i s taken at the same times everyday rather than at d i f f e r e n t times. Integrating the intended action within a routine may also enable one to determine whether or not the action has been executed. However, t h i s was not observed by Wilkins & Baddeley (1978). Episodic prospective memory tasks, are a c t i v i t i e s that one engages in on an infrequent or i r r e g u l a r basis. One must remember about the a c t i v i t y i n order to carry out the task. Several strategies involving either external or i n t e r n a l memory aids (see below) may be used to aid one's 9 memory. For example, one may t r y to remember to pick up a s u i t from the dry cleaners by writing a note. Although the d i s t i n c t i o n between episodic and habitual prospective memory tasks i s an int e r e s t i n g one, there i s l i t t l e empirical support for i t (e.g. Meacham & Singer, 1977). As well, l i k e many other dichotomies proposed in t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , for example, keeping an appointment vs. doing one thing before or af t e r another, event-based vs. time-based tasks, and steps vs. pulses, the d i s t i n c t i o n between episodic and habitual tasks i s clear at the end-points, but i s somewhat fuzzy in the middle. For example, i s making a loan payment once a month an example of an episodic or habitual task? Time i n t e r v a l . Performance on a prospective memory task may also be affected by time i n t e r v a l . Time i n t e r v a l refers to the length of time between when one plans to carry out a given a c t i v i t y and when the action i s actually completed. Not surprisingly, t h i s may vary depending on the type of task. Some tasks can be done almost immediately a f t e r an intention has been developed, however others may only be completed after some length of time has passed. Researchers have not always made a d i s t i n c t i o n between these two categories of tasks, but such a d i s t i n c t i o n i s necessary i f one i s to attempt to understand the processes that are involved i n carrying out an intended action. 10 Remembering to perform an a c t i v i t y i n the near future may involve maintaining one's attention long enough to complete the task rather than memory as such (Meacham & Leiman, 1982). These types of a c t i v i t i e s have been studied extensively by Reason (e.g. Reason, 1979; Reason & Mycielska, 1982). Although Reason has tended to confound time i n t e r v a l with task regularity, t h i s need not be the case. For example, remembering to brush one's teeth while preparing for bed involves both a short time i n t e r v a l and a habitual task. Deciding to stop at the grocery store while driv i n g home from work may involve a short time i n t e r v a l , but may also be episodic in nature. Tasks that can be done immediately have been the focus of Reason's research on absent-mindedness (see Reason, 1979; Reason & Mycielska, 1982). For the most part, however, the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e has focused on tasks that need to be completed a f t e r some period of time (which can range from minutes to days or weeks). Thus, research involving extremely short time i n t e r v a l s (in the order of a few seconds) w i l l not be considered further. Three studies have d i r e c t l y manipulated time i n t e r v a l . Loftus (1971) asked participants at the beginning of the study to report the name of t h e i r b i r t h state a f t e r answering a series of either f i v e or f i f t e e n questions. Lay (1988) asked a i r l i n e passengers to mail an envelope from t h e i r destination point either when they arrived or three 11 days l a t e r . Meacham and Leiman (1982, Experiment 2) asked participants to return four postcards to the experimenter on s p e c i f i e d dates beginning eit h e r immediately, or two weeks af t e r the instructions were given. Loftus (1971) noted that prospective memory performance deteriorated as the time i n t e r v a l increased. In contrast, Lay (1988) and Meacham and Leiman (1982) found that time i n t e r v a l had no e f f e c t on performance. Because of the d i f f e r e n t procedures used in these three studies, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine why Loftus (1971) found an e f f e c t although the other two studies did not. I n t u i t i v e l y i t would seem that the shorter the time i n t e r v a l , the more l i k e l y one i s to remember to perform a prospective memory task. The limited l i t e r a t u r e on t h i s issue, however, suggests that, in fact, time i n t e r v a l may have l i t t l e e f fect on prospective memory performance. Knowledge for carrying out the plan The second condition that must be met i n order for a planned a c t i v i t y to be completed successfully involves having the knowledge necessary to carry out the intention. This aspect of prospective memory has d i r e c t implications for how well one can function i n everyday l i f e . Yet, i t has received l i t t l e empirical or t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t (but see Sinnott, 1986a, 1989a). Unless an individual knows he or she has the necessary knowledge or that the information can be obtained (without losing sight of the o r i g i n a l 12 intention), i t i s unlikely that the intention w i l l be f u l f i l l e d . Having or obtaining the information necessary for carrying out an intention i s essenti a l , but having that knowledge does not ensure that the intention w i l l be f u l f i l l e d . For example, one needs to know which businesses stock a p a r t i c u l a r item in order to buy i t , but knowing where the item can be obtained does not ensure that i t w i l l be bought. Remembering the plan The t h i r d condition for carrying out a planned a c t i v i t y involves remembering the intention at the appropriate time. Remembering i t too early or too late i s not s u f f i c i e n t and may have important consequences. What i s an appropriate time may, to some extent, depend on the pa r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y . For example, remembering sometime between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. that one intended to go to the bank may be s u f f i c i e n t , but remembering at 3:00 that one had a doctor's appointment at 10:30 i s not. The importance of not only remembering one's intention, but remembering i t at the appropriate time, i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the types of memory strategies people use in everyday l i f e . Two general classes of strategies can be used to help one remember. The type of strategy employed may depend on the nature of the task involved. Time monitoring strategies may be used when one must perform a task at, or by, a 13 s p e c i f i e d time, while memory aids may be used when one must remember to do something that i s not part of his or her normal routine. These two strategies may be used either alone or together. For example, one may remember an appointment by keeping an eye on the time, or by writing a note as well as watching the clock. Time monitoring. Ceci and Bronfenbrenner (1985) have noted that two strategies may be used to increase prospective remembering when one must do a task at, by, or for, a p a r t i c u l a r time (e.g keeping an appointment or cooking something for a specified length of time). One approach i s to engage in what Ceci and Bronf enbrenner have termed "anxious time monitoring". In t h i s case, an individual checks the clock with increasing frequency over the course of the waiting period. As a consequence, a l i n e a r function of clock-checking i s obtained. A second, more e f f i c i e n t strategy i s to use "strategic time monitoring". This strategy allows one to engage in infrequent clock-checking during the waiting period, thus allowing an individual to engage in other a c t i v i t i e s . Three stages are involved in strategic time monitoring (Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985). These include a c a l i b r a t i o n stage during which an individual compares the passage of psychological time with the amount of real time that has elapsed, a second stage during which individuals pursue other a c t i v i t i e s and rarely check the clock, and a t h i r d 14 stage during which the rate of clock-checking increases as the end of the waiting period i s approached. With s t r a t e g i c time monitoring, a U-shaped function i s obtained and the t o t a l amount of time spent checking the clock i s less than when anxious time monitoring i s used. Both strategies have disadvantages. In anxious time monitoring, one i s unable to engage in other a c t i v i t i e s during the waiting period, whereas in st r a t e g i c time monitoring one may f a i l to perform the task at the appropriate time. If a s p e c i f i c task i s of p a r t i c u l a r importance though, one may use other strategies (in addition to s t r a t e g i c time monitoring) to ensure that the task i s completed on time (e.g. a wrist watch alarm). There i s some indication that both strategies may be used by children, although the type of strategy used depends on the c h i l d ' s age and the environment in which he or she i s operating (e.g. Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985; Ceci et a l . , 1988). Adults may also use strategic time monitoring, at least under some conditions (Harris & Wilkins, 1982). Because of the very d i f f e r e n t procedures used, however, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make d i r e c t comparisons between the Harris and Wilkins study and the studies conducted by Ceci and his co-workers (Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985; Ceci et a l . , 1988). Use of memory aids. In addition to monitoring the passage of time, one may t r y to remember to do something by 15 using a memory aid of some sort. Memory aids can be divided into two major categories (see Harris, 1978, 1980). External memory aids involve manipulating one's environment. Some external aids may be primarily used to store information and include written reminder notes, shopping l i s t s , and entries on calendars or i n appointment books or day planners. Other external aids, such as wrist watch alarms, leaving objects where they w i l l serve as v i s i b l e reminders, and wearing a watch or ring in an unusual manner, may serve as general reminders that an a c t i v i t y i s to be performed. External memory aids may be contrasted with internal memory aids which involve manipulating information i n t e r n a l l y . Some internal aids involve encoding strategies, such as the peg-word, story, and l o c i methods, rhymes, f i r s t l e t t e r mnemonics, and making associations between names and faces. Other internal aids primarily involve r e t r i e v a l strategies, such as alphabetic searching and mentally retracing actions or events. For descriptions of these various internal memory aids, see Morris (1979). Many external memory aids seem to involve remembering prospective information, but most internal memory aids seem to be concerned with retrospective memory. As Neisser (1982) has pointed out, though, t h i s need not be the case. External aids such as photograph albums or asking other people for information can be used to retrieve retrospective 16 information. Prospective memory may be f a c i l i t a t e d by using internal aids such as mentally remembering how many items one must buy and what they are, or keeping track of how many tasks one needs to do and how many have been done. Harris (1978, 1980) assessed the frequency with which both int e r n a l and external aids are used to remember information in everyday l i f e . In his study, both students and community-dwelling adults were asked to indicate how often they used various types of memory aids. People reported using external memory aids more than internal ones, but t h i s may have been because external aids are e f f e c t i v e in helping one remember to perform intended actions. Indeed, t h i s seems to be the case for both young children and adults (e.g. Kreutzer, Leonard & F l a v e l l , 1975; Meacham & Colombo, 1980; Meacham & Leiman, 1982). Yet, as Meacham and Dumitru, (1976) have noted, the use of an external cue may not be e f f e c t i v e under a l l conditions. Moreover, the extent to which a p a r t i c u l a r type of memory i s e f f e c t i v e may be individual s p e c i f i c . For example, writing a note to oneself i s a commonly used strategy, but i f an individual does not look at the note, i t may be an i n e f f e c t i v e one. Carrying; out the plan Remembering one's intention at the appropriate time i s important, but i t i s not enough to ensure that the intention w i l l be c a r r i e d out. Thus, the fourth component that i s 17 necessary for completing a prospective memory task i s to a c t u a l l y perform the task. Remembering the intention primarily involves cognitive processes, namely memory. However, carrying out the intention i s influenced by non-cognitive processes, such as fatigue, procrastination, motivation, incentive and commitment. Procrastination and motivation can be considered variables that are under an individual's c o n t r o l . In contrast, incentive and commitment are variables that are amenable to experimental manipulation. Fatigue i s a subjective state, but an experimental manipulation can a f f e c t one's le v e l of fatigue. Fatigue. The effects of fatigue on prospective memory performance were examined in an early study conducted by Drew (1940). A f l i g h t simulator was used to determine the a b i l i t y of p i l o t s to remember a sequence of actions under conditions of extreme fatigue. Drew noted that the more fatigued the p i l o t s became, the less l i k e l y they were to remember to perform the actions at the specified time. They were also less l i k e l y to check t h e i r fuel, pressure and temperature gauges, or the position of the undercarriage. The e f f e c t of fatigue on prospective memory performance may be more general, than that examined by Drew. One's l e v e l of fatigue may also a f f e c t performance with respect to the other four factors. For example, one may be more l i k e l y to 18 procrastinate or less l i k e l y to comply with a request i f he or she i s fatigued. Procrastination. Although procrastination implies that one has remembered that a p a r t i c u l a r task needs to be done (but has not done i t ) , i t may also be related to forgetting to do the task. For example, one may remember that a phone c a l l needs to be made, decide not to make the c a l l at the time i t i s remembered, and then genuinely forget about i t for several hours or days. It may be d i f f i c u l t to determine i f the memory f a i l u r e i s a consequence of procrastination or forgetting. The r e l a t i o n between procrastination and f a i l i n g to carry out a prospective memory task was examined by Lay (1988). Participants, who were passengers waiting i n an ai r p o r t , were f i r s t administered both Lay's (1986) procrastination scale and a modified version of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (which measures general memory f a i l u r e s ; see Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald & Parkes, 1982) . They were then asked to mail an envelope from t h e i r destination point by a sp e c i f i e d time. Participants who scored high on the procrastination scale (procrastinators) were less l i k e l y to return the envelope on time than those who scored lower on the scale. Performance was not affected by p a r t i c i p a n t s ' scores on the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire or by the sp e c i f i e d mailing date. This study suggests that a f a i l u r e to perform a task as sp e c i f i e d may 19 not necessarily be due to memory f a i l u r e . I t also demonstrates that studies of prospective memory need to include independent assessments of remembering and forgetting (cf. Meacham & Kushner, 1980). Motivation. Motivation has t y p i c a l l y been assessed by asking p a r t i c i p a n t s to indicate, on s e l f - r a t i n g scales administered at the end of a study, how often they had done t h e i r best to meet the requirements of the study (e.g. Meacham & Leiman, 1982; Meacham & Singer, 1977; cf. Wilkins & Baddeley, 1978). Meacham and Leiman (1982) found no difference in the number of postcards returned (99% in both studies) , despite the fact that i n one study 88% of the participants indicated they did t h e i r best, although in the other only 59% indicated they had performed as well as they could. Meacham and Singer (1977) found that memory performance (based on the number of times the task was performed on time) was better for par t i c i p a n t s who reported they always did t h e i r best than for those who reported they often or sometimes did t h e i r best. Incentive. Four studies have examined the effects of le v e l of incentive on prospective memory performance ( K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Meacham & Singer, 1977; Orne, 1970; Poon & Schaffer, c i t e d in West, 1984) . Of these, ^the Meacham and Singer and Orne studies are the most similar. Both studies required participants to return postcards to the experimenter over the course of eight weeks. In both 20 cases money was used as the incentive. Orne (1970) found that return rates were highest when participants were paid a l l of the money at the beginning of the study and t o l d the experimenter was confident they would return the complete set of postcards. The return rates were lower when participants were paid a l l of the money at the beginning of the study (but were not t o l d the experimenter was confident the cards would be returned) and when they were given part of the money at the beginning of the study and t o l d that at the end of the study they would receive additional funds based on the number of postcards returned. Meacham and Singer (1977) found that more postcards were returned, and more were returned on time, when participants believed they could receive some money (high incentive condition) than when they did not. At f i r s t glance, the results of the two studies may seem at odds. For example, Orne's (1970) participants who knew they could receive additional money at the end of the study were s i m i l a r to the participants i n the high incentive condition i n Meacham and Singer's (1977) study. One might expect that the highest return rates would be obtained in these two conditions. This was not observed. One explanation for the obtained findings i s that commitment may also have been a factor in the Orne (1970) study, but not in the Meacham and Singer (1977) investigation. That i s , participants who were t o l d the experimenter was confident 21 they would return a l l of the postcards may have i m p l i c i t l y agreed with the experimenter's request. As discussed below, greater commitment may be re f l e c t e d i n better memory performance for t h i s type of task ( i . e . returning postcards). Poon and Schaffer (cited i n West, 1984) also noted that monetary incentives affected performance. In t h i s study, the old participants were more l i k e l y to make phone c a l l s on time when payment was related to performance than when i t was not. The payment manipulation had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the performance of the young participants, who generally did not c a l l on time. Using a very d i f f e r e n t paradigm, K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987, Study 2) manipulated incentive by varying the perceived importance of the prospective task (hanging up a phone as a courtesy vs. hanging i t up because someone with greater authority was expecting a c a l l ) . As in the studies reviewed above, the greater the incentive, the higher the p r o b a b i l i t y that the task was performed at the appropriate time. Commitment. Several studies have examined how commitment may be related to performance on prospective memory tasks. Many of these have been conducted within medical settings (e.g. Levy, 1977; Levy & Clark, 1980; Levy, et a l . , 1979). Commitment has been manipulated by asking part i c i p a n t s to verbally agree to perform a task or to give 22 both verbal and written agreement that the task would be performed. When participants were asked to make a phone c a l l or mail a postcard, better prospective memory performance was observed as the l e v e l of commitment increased (e.g. Levy, 1977; Levy et a l . , 1979). No e f f e c t of commitment l e v e l was observed when participants were asked to keep an appointment (Levy & Clark, 1980) . Levy and Clark have suggested that keeping an appointment may require greater involvement on the part of the participant than making a phone c a l l or mailing a postcard, and as a r e s u l t , making a commitment may be i n s u f f i c i e n t to improve performance. Although strong motivational, incentive and/or commitment levels do not preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that a p a r t i c u l a r individual w i l l procrastinate in carrying out a given a c t i v i t y , the studies reviewed above have assumed that they may reduce that p o s s i b i l i t y . Nevertheless, the v a l i d i t y of t h i s assumption may depend on the time frame within which a p a r t i c u l a r task needs to be completed. The larger the time frame, the more room there i s for an i n d i v i d u a l to procrastinate, at least to some extent, without the person actually f a i l i n g to complete the task by the s p e c i f i e d time. For example, i f a grant application i s due i n a week, one may begin working on i t immediately. If i t i s not due for three months, one may delay working on i t u n t i l a week or two before i t i s due. 23 Knowing the plan has been completed The f i f t h component that i s necessary for completing a prospective memory task involves remembering that the a c t i v i t y has been completed in order to avoid r e p e t i t i o n (Kausler & Hakami, 1983; Kausler, Lichty, & Freund, 1985; Wilkins & Baddeley, 1978). As with having the knowledge necessary to carry out an intention, t h i s component has received l i t t l e empirical attention within the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e . One reason for t h i s paucity of studies may be due to the b e l i e f that t h i s component involves retrospective rather than prospective memory (e.g. Meacham & Kushner, 1980). Nevertheless, some authors have argued that t h i s i s an important aspect of prospective memory since i t allows one to determine whether a planned a c t i v i t y has actually been executed (Koriat & Ben-Zur, 1988; Koriat, Ben-Zur, & Sheffer, 1988). Koriat and Ben-Zur (1988) have suggested that output monitoring, that i s , knowing that a planned action has been executed, involves two kinds of processes. On-line processes occur at the time an act i s completed and are responsible for re g i s t e r i n g the execution of that action. Retrospective processes occur when an appropriate s i t u a t i o n i s presented and are responsible for judging the completion of a past action. On-line monitoring may be accomplished i n several ways (Koriat & Ben-Zur, 1988). F i r s t , the plan may be erased 24 from a mental scratch pad or an external memory aid (e.g. a note) may be destroyed. Second, the plan may be overtly or covertly checked o f f when completed, thus di s t i n g u i s h i n g i t from plans that have not yet been executed. Third, plans that have been executed may simply be forgotten or replaced by other plans. F i n a l l y , plans may be ca r r i e d out according to some predetermined order; once a plan has been completed, an index i s moved to the next plan. On-line monitoring may not always occur, and when i t does, i t may be incomplete Thus, at times, one may experience doubts about whether an action has been executed. For example, one may question whether a door was locked or an appliance was turned o f f . In these instances, such doubts may be a l l e v i a t e d by looking for retrospective evidence (sic) of task completion. In some cases, t h i s may simply involve checking for external evidence (e.g. checking the lock or the status of the appliance), however in others, i t may involve an internal review (e.g. r e c o l l e c t i n g that one had d i f f i c u l t y s l i d i n g the dead bolt into place, or that one put the appliance away). Although Koriat and Ben-Zur obtained some evidence for retrospective monitoring, they found l i t t l e evidence for internal on-line monitoring. For the most part, internal on-line monitoring processes are carried out automatically, and, therefore, may not be readily accessible to conscious inquiry. 25 Summary Five conditions need to be f u l f i l l e d before a prospective memory task can be successfully completed: (a) intending or planning to do something i n the future; (b) having the knowledge necessary to carry out the intention; (c) remembering the intention at the appropriate time; (d) carrying out the intention; and (e) knowing that the intention has been completed. The l i t e r a t u r e on prospective memory has addressed each of these conditions, but there has been l i t t l e attempt to examine any of them in d e t a i l . By and large, i t appears to r e f l e c t the general research interests of s p e c i f i c investigators rather than any attempt to study prospective memory systematically. Despite t h i s , several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s emerge from the papers summarized i n Table 1. F i r s t , much of the empirical work has involved children or young adults. A few investigations have involved e l d e r l y p a r t i c i p a n t s , but the middle age range has been largely ignored. Second, several studies have involved participants mailing postcards and making phone c a l l s , although other tasks, such as pressing buttons or doing one task a f t e r another, have also been used. There i s , however, a number of everyday a c t i v i t i e s that have not been examined (e.g. passing along a verbal message, picking up something at the store on the way home from work, completing tasks i n a sp e c i f i e d manner). Third, although the variety of issues Table 1 A summary of the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e Theoretical and review papers Study Major focus Baddeley & Wilkins (1984) Beal (1988) Harris (1984) d i s t i n c t i o n between PM and RMa i s weak; dichotomies, such as short-term/long-term and episodic/semantic, which have been applied to RM are also relevant to PM young children may f a i l to perform PM tasks appropriately because they do not recognize (a) when they should use reminders, (b) what reminders would be ef f e c t i v e , and (c) how informative reminders w i l l be in the future; older children are more r e a l i s t i c about t h e i r memory a b i l i t i e s PM studies are divided into those involving appointment keeping and those involving doing one thing before or after another; some discussion of theoretical issues i s provided, but the emphasis i s on the monitoring aspect of PM Levy & Loftus (1984) focuses on compliance within medical settings; memory is only one of several factors which a f f e c t compliance Meacham (1982) the motivational context within which an in d i v i d u a l (con't) Table 1 (con't) Theoretical and review papers Study Major focus i s operating w i l l determine whether an intended action i s remembered and/or carried out Meacham (1988) interpersonal dynamics aff e c t performance on PM tasks Sinnott (1989a) discusses a number of issues and methodological questions concerning PM; provides a summary of the PM l i t e r a t u r e Winograd (1988) PM and RM are compared; concludes that PM i s affected by non-cognitive factors to a greater extent than RM Experimental Papers Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings Beal (1985) Study 1 kindergarten (mean=5.7; answer 6 questions the 2 youngest regarding the use groups provided (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings n=25) grade 1 (mean= 6.8; n=2 0) grade 3 (mean= 8.6; n=18) undergraduates (n=15) of d i f f e r e n t types of cues to aid PM fewer correct responses than the adults, although the 3 youngest groups did not d i f f e r from each other; boys performed better than g i r l s ; some of the questions were more d i f f i c u l t than others, e s p e c i a l l y for the children Study 2 Ceci, Baker, & Bronfenbrenner (1988) preschoolers (mean= 4.5; n=10) kindergarten (mean= 5.7; n=20) grade 3 (mean=8.7; n=18) 10 year olds answer 6 questions regarding the use of a cue to help relocate a hidden object bake cupcakes for exactly 30 minutes grade 3 students performed better than the 2 youngest groups, who performed equally well monitoring clocks which run 10% or 33% faster or slower than normal produces a U-shaped (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings function; monitoring clocks which run 50% faster or slower than normal produces a l i n e a r function Ceci & Bronfenbrenner (1985) 10 year olds (mean= 10.7; n=48, 24 M, 24 F b) 14 year olds (mean= 14.6; n=48, 24 M, 24 F) bake cupcakes or charge motorcycle battery for exactly 30 minutes strategic time monitoring used i n home; anxious time monitoring used i n the lab; older children use strategic time monitoring more than younger children, but only in the lab Dobbs & (1987) Rule adults (3 0-99; n=228, 83 M, 145 F) ask for a red pen prior to drawing 2 shapes (about 2 0 minutes l a t e r ) ; put date and time i n a specified location on a questionnaire to be completed at age s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with performance on both PM tasks; no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between s e l f - r a t i n g s of PM and performance on (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings home the PM tasks Drew (1940) p i l o t s (n=??) perform a set of simulated f l y i n g manoeuvres; check readings on various instruments the correct timing of the maneuvers and checking of the instruments declined with increasing l e v e l s of fatigue E i n s t e i n & McDaniel (1990) Study 1 young (students; 17-24, mean=??; n=2 4) old (university alumni; 65-75, mean=68.8; n=24) press a key on a computer keyboard when a p a r t i c u l a r word appears on the screen young perform better on RM task but no age differences for PM task; PM related to use of memory aids; no r e l a t i o n between PM and RM tasks Study 2 young (students; 17-24, mean=??; n=24) old (university alumni, 68-78, press a key on a computer keyboard when a p a r t i c u l a r word appears on the screen PM better with fa m i l i a r than with unfamiliar word; young perform better than old on RM task; (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings mean=67.3; n=24) no r e l a t i o n between PM and RM tasks E l l i s (1988) adults (28-41, keep a diary d i s t i n c t i o n made mean=3 5; n=7, of planned between steps 1 M, 6 F) intentions for (actions which can 10 days be performed within a f l e x i b l e time period) and pulses (actions which need . to be performed at a par t i c u l a r time and place) Harris (1978/1980) Study 1 students (19-27, specify the external aids used mean=21; n=3 0, frequency with more than internal 15 M, 15 F) which various aids; for internal memory aids are aids, r e t r i e v a l used strategies used more frequently than encoding strategies Study 2 females (23-67, specify the similar findings to mean=4 6; n=3 0) frequency with above; greater use which various of certain external memory aids are aids (appointment (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings used Harris & Wilkins (1982) females (adults??; n=29) hold up sheets of paper with times written on them at 3 or 9 minute intervals books, calendars, shopping l i s t s , alarm cooking timers) the majority of the responses occurred within the f i r s t few seconds of the c r i t i c a l period; the time i n t e r v a l between the second to l a s t and the l a s t clock check was related to the type of response made (fast, slow, l a t e ) ; no e f f e c t due to time i n t e r v a l Jackson, Bogers & Kerstholt (1988) students young (18-30, mean=20.5; n=114) old (51-78, mean= 62.5; n=39) complete a questionnaire assessing both memory lapses and the use of various mnemonics both groups use external aids more than internal ones in general; in s p e c i f i c situations, old use inter n a l and (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings external aids equally often to remember RM information; use external aids more than internal aids to remember PM information; young use internal aids to remember both PM and RM information Koriat & Ben-Zur (1988) Study 1 young people (n=25) interview on memory for performed planned actions l i t t l e evidence for on-line monitoring although some for retrospect ive monitoring; d e f i c i e n t output monitoring may produce action omission, r e p e t i t i o n or checking (con't) L O C O Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings Study 2 (same as Study 1 i n Koriat et a l . , 1988) Study 3 (same as Study 2 i n Koriat et a l . , 1988) Koriat, Ben-Zur & Sheffer (1988) Study 1 Study 2 young (20-30; n=20, 11 M, 9 F) old (65-87; n=20, 8M, 12 F) young (18-28, mean= 22.7; n=30, 9 M, 21 F) old (60-87, mean= 70.1; n=30, 15 M, 15 F) r e c a l l l i s t of semantically related words r e c a l l l i s t of semantically unrelated words; on recognition task, indicate which words had been re c a l l e d old produce about the same number of repetitions o v e r a l l as the young, but were more l i k e l y to repeat words than the young old more l i k e l y to repeat words than young; old worse at recognizing recalled words than young; h i t rate i n (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants -Task(s) used Major findings recognition task was negatively correlated with l i k e l i h o o d of repeating words for old but not for young Study 3 young (21-31, mean= 24.5; n=40, 14 M, 26 F) old (61-85, mean= 71.2; n=40, 28 M, 12 F) sort words into p i l e s based on whether they had been on the study l i s t and whether they had been c l a s s i f i e d previously old worse than young at both input and output monitoring; old worse at output monitoring than at input monitoring; young worse at input monitoring than at output monitoring Kreutzer, Leonard, & F l a v e l l (1975) kindergarten (n=20, 10 M, 10F) grade 1 (n=20, 10 M, 10 F) grade 3 (n=20, 10 M, 10 F) answer questions regarding taking skates to school and remembering a friend's birthday party a l l children f e e l external aids are better than int e r n a l ones, but older children (third and f i f t h graders) (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987) Study 1 Study 2 grade 5 (n=20, 10 M, 10 F) students (17-27; n=30, 40 M, 40 F) students (16-28; n=300, 126 M, 174F) remind experimenter to look for the data for a specified individual at the end of the test session hang up a telephone receiver after 5 minutes suggested a greater number of d i f f e r e n t aids than younger children remembering the contents of a message and remembering i t at the appropriate time are not related performance was better with an important request than with an unimportant one and when an intervening task was uninteresting than when i t was absorbing (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings Lay (1988) a i r l i n e passengers (adults ??; n=84, 56 M, 28 F) mail an envelope on a r r i v a l at destination or 3 days l a t e r no e f f e c t of time interval on performance; low procrastinators returned the envelope on time more often than high procrastinators Levy (1977) mothers of junior high students i n a behavior therapy program (n=44) make a phone c a l l between 7 and 9 p.m. on a specified day better compliance i n the verbal + written condition than i n the control condition; no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the verbal commitment only condition and the other 2 conditions Levy & Clark (1980) c l i n i c outpatients (approx. 19-60; n=123, 60 M, 63 F) keep an appointment no e f f e c t of commitment manipulation (verbal + written vs. no commitment) (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study- Participants Task(s) used Major findings Levy, Yamashita & Pow (1979) patients at f l u inoculation c l i n i c s (adults ??; n=703) mail symptom report card after 48 hours more cards returned and more returned sooner in the (verbal) commitment condition than i n the control (no commitment) condition, although the effects may be due primarily to differences between c l i n i c s Loftus (1971) adults (n=200) Mateer, Sohlberg, & Crinean (1985) adults (???) brain injured with coma (n=121) name the state in which they were born after answering a series of questions complete a 3 0-item self-report questionnaire performance was better with 5 than with 15 questions; performance was better when participants knew the content of the l a s t question than when they did not a l l 3 groups report greatest d i f f i c u l t y with attention/PM (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings Meacham & Colombo (1980) Meacham & Dumitru (1976) brain injured without coma (n=57) non-brain injured (n=157) kindergarten (mean=5.8; n=38) grade 2 (mean= 7.7; n=38) kindergarten (mean=5.6; n=41) grade 2 (mean= 7.6; n=41) regarding 6 aspects of memory remind experimenter to open a box at the end of the experimental session (7 minutes later) take an envelope from the testing room at the end of the experimental session (7 minutes later) and least d i f f i c u l t y with h i s t o r i c a l / overlearned memory remembering was more frequent in the elaboration than i n the control condition; no s i g n i f i c a n t age effects older children were more l i k e l y to remember than younger children, although a l l children were able to choose an appropriate cue; no differences between conditions (no cue, cue, cue + elaboration) (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings Meacham & Kushner students (n=107, describe 3 when a task was (1980) 42 M, 31 F) situations involving remembered but not PM: forgotten; executed, low remembered but not comfortableness done; remembered and ratings were completed obtained; when a task was forgotten, low importance and moderate comfortableness ratings were obtained; importance and comfortableness were not related with remembered tasks, but were negatively correlated with forgotten tasks Meacham & Leiman (1982) Study 1 students (n=27, 13 M, mail either 4 or the percentage of 14 F) 8 postcards on cards mailed on the specified dates over appropriate dates a period of 32 days was approximately (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings the same for the tag and the ho tag conditions, however, the tag condition was better than the no tag condition for l a t e r dates when only 4 cards had to be returned; no r e l a t i o n between PM and RM tasks Study 2 students 22 F) (n=44, 22 M, mail 4 postcards on specified dates over a period of 16 or 32 days in the long-interval condition (similar to the 4 card condition i n Study 1), performance was better i n the tag than in the no tag condition for a l l dates Meacham & Singer (1977) students 2 5 F) (n=48, 23 M, mail 8 postcards on sp e c i f i e d dates over a period of 8 weeks more cards were mailed on time in the high than in the low incentive (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Par t i c i p a n t s Task(s) used Major findings condition; greater use of external aids in the high than in the low incentive condition; better performance with high than with low e f f o r t Moscovitch & Minde (ci t e d i n Moscovitch, 1982) Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 young (n=10) old (n=10) young old young old make a phone c a l l everyday for 2 weeks at a time convenient for participant make 2 phone c a l l s , 1 per week at a time chosen by experimenter make 2 phone c a l l s 10% of old and 8 0% of young missed at least 1 appointment; old used external memory aids more than young results were sim i l a r to those obtained in Study 1 when requested to use internal aids only, approximately (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings 50% of the old missed an appointment, but they were no worse than the young; old reluctant to give up external aids Orne (1970) students (n=31) mail 1 postcard every day for 8 weeks more cards were returned by participants who both received payment i n advance and were t o l d the experimenter was confident they would return a l l of the cards than by participants who were only paid in advance or who were paid some of the money in advance and t o l d they would receive (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings additional funds at the end of the study Poon & Schaffer (cited in West, 1984) Reason (1979) young (18-38, mean= 25.3) old (58-88, mean= 73.2) adults (15-46, mean=29; n=3 5, 12 M, 23 F) make 2 5 phone c a l l s over a 3 week period keep d i a r i e s of "actions not as planned" (memory fa i l u r e s only) old remembered more c a l l s , c a l l e d more closely to the target time and were more consistent over time than the young; old more accurate with large than with small monetary payments while young generally l a t e regardless of payment entries c l a s s i f i e d into 5 categories; the 3 most common appear to be c l o s e l y related to PM R i t t e r (1978) preschoolers (3-5.4; mean= 4.3; n=80) answer questions regarding relocating a hidden object grade 3 students were able to use an external cue (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings grade 3 (8.8-9.6, spontaneously; mean=9.2; n=16) preschool children could do so only afte r prompting Schonfield & adults (15-71) press Morse key the number of Shooter (cited before giving a omitted key presses i n Welford, 1958) response to a second task increased with age Searleman & students (n=60, remind experimenter Type A partic i p a n t s Gaydusek (1989) 30 M, 30 F) to make a phone c a l l ; return an information card were more l i k e l y to remind the exper-imenter to make the c a l l than Type B individuals; those high i n s e l f -a ctualization reminded the experimenter sooner than those low in s e l f -a c t ualization; Type A individuals returned the card sooner than Type B (con't) T a b l e 1 ( c o n ' t ) S t u d y P a r t i c i p a n t s T a s k ( s ) u s e d M a j o r f i n d i n g s i n d i v i d u a l s S i n n o t t ( 1 9 8 6 a ) a d u l t s ( 2 3 - 9 3 ; n = 7 9 , 43 M, 3 6 F ) S i n n o t t ( 1 9 8 6 b ) a d u l t s ( 2 3 - 9 3 ; n = 7 9 , 43 M, 3 6 F ) a n s w e r a s e t o f q u e s t i o n s o n p r o s p e c t i v e a n d i n c i d e n t a l m e m o r y a t 3 d i f f e r e n t t i m e s ( s a m e d a y , 7 - 1 0 d a y s l a t e r , 1 8 - 2 1 m o n t h s l a t e r ) a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g p r o s p e c t i v e , a c t i o n , o r i n c i d e n t a l m e m o r y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t e s t e x p e r i e n c e a t 3 d i f f e r e n t t i m e s ( s a m e d a y , 7 - 1 0 d a y s l a t e r , 1 8 - 2 1 m o n t h s l a t e r ) a g e w a s n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h m e m o r y ( i . e . y o u n g p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r t h a n o l d ) f o r i n c i d e n t a l i t e m s a t t i m e s 2 a n d 3 , b u t w a s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h m e m o r y f o r PM i t e m s a t t i m e 3 ; n o a g e o r t i m e e f f e c t s w e r e o b s e r v e d f o r m o s t o f t h e PM t a s k s m e m o r y f o r i t e m s d e c l i n e d o v e r t i m e , b u t r a t e o f d e c l i n e w a s a b o u t t h e s a m e f o r t h e y o u n g a n d t h e o l d ; w h e n d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d , y o u n g f o r g o t a t a f a s t e r ( c o n ' t ) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings rate than the old West (1984) Study 1 Study 2 (same as West, 1988, Study 1 ??) young (18-39; n=45) middle-aged (40-59; n=36) old (60-90; n=23) adolescents (14-18; n=2 3) young adults (25-4 0; n=24) old (60-81; n=26) make 3 entries regarding representative memory a c t i v i t i e s in a diary each day for 7 days remember interview appointment; locate folder at end of interview; phone experimenter before bed on the same day; mail a postcard 2 days l a t e r ; indicate strategy used to remember the c a l l and the postcard about 4 5% of the diary entries involved PM, across a l l age groups; as well, the use of strategies did not vary with age 96% remembered the interview; 100% remembered to locate the folder; no age differences for the phone c a l l ; young and old groups mailed i n card more often than not, but often forgot to include the strategy message; adolescents f a i l e d to return the card and include the strategy message (con't) Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings to the same extent West (1988) Study 1 Study 2 adolescents (14-18, mean=16.3; n=2 3) young (25-40, mean= 3 2.4; n=2 4) old (60-81, mean= 73.9, n=24) young (students; 19-23, mean=19.8; n=26) old (63-83, mean= 72.0; n=2 6) make a phone c a l l before r e t i r i n g for the night on the same day as the interview; mail a postcard 2 days l a t e r ; indicate strategy used to remember each task remind experimenter to do something at spe c i f i e d times during an interview (approximately 30-35 minutes after instructions given) for both tasks, young used external aids more than the old group; adolescents least l i k e l y to mail card, while old least l i k e l y to put a strategy message on the card; no differences between groups for the phone c a l l young remember more of the d e t a i l s of the request than old; old affected more by cue type (verbal + vi s u a l vs. verbal + situational) than young (con't) 4> 00 Table 1 (con't) Study Participants Task(s) used Major findings Wilkins Sinnott, (c i t e d by 1989a) adults (n=34) mail 1 postcard from 2 to 36 days after instruction no ef f e c t of time interval on return rate Wilkins Baddeley (1978) females (35-49; n=31) push button on print-out clock 4 times per day for 7 days greater accuracy at 8:30 a.m. than at 1:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m.; performance at 10:00 a.m. did not d i f f e r from other times; 37% of the memory f a i l u r e s were not acknowledged; negative r e l a t i o n between PM and RM tasks Note: aPM = prospective memory; RM = retrospective memory. bM= males, F = females. 50 that have been examined (and as a consequence, the findings that have been obtained) are quite diverse, some tentative conclusions can be drawn: (a) in general, the use of external memory aids increases with age (at least to adulthood) and produces an improvement i n performance r e l a t i v e to the use of internal memory aids; (b) several non-cognitive factors such as fatigue, procrastination, motivation, incentive, and commitment a f f e c t prospective memory performance; (c) in adults, prospective memory performance may not d i f f e r as a function of age; and (d) many of the d i s t i n c t i o n s that have been made (e.g. pulses vs. steps, simple vs. compound tasks, habitual vs. episodic tasks) have not received much empirical attention. Fundamental Questions The exi s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e raises three very important and fundamental questions. F i r s t , much of the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that prospective memory can be examined independently of retrospective memory. Nevertheless, some researchers have claimed that prospective and retrospective memory involve s i m i l a r processes (e.g. Baddeley & Wilkins, 1984). Thus, the f i r s t question i s : Are prospective and retrospective memory dif f e r e n t ? Second, performance on prospective memory tasks has t y p i c a l l y been measured using objective tasks; s e l f - r e p o r t measures have generally been ignored. It i s assumed that 51 objective measures provide information about an individual's actual a b i l i t y to function i n everyday l i f e . However, performance on these measures may be influenced by what one believes about his or her a b i l i t y to remember intentions. It i s , therefore, not c l e a r to what extent the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e provides information regarding an individual's perceived a b i l i t y to function in everyday l i f e , and h is or her actual a b i l i t y to function. Self-report measures can be used to assess one's perceptions of his or her own memory. But, performance on self-report measures may or may not r e f l e c t performance on objective or behavioral measures. Thus, the second question one can ask i s : Do self-report and objective measures of prospective memory correlate? Third, people generally believe that t h e i r memory has or w i l l decline with age. This b e l i e f i s supported by much of the memory and aging l i t e r a t u r e which suggests that memory performance on retrospective memory tasks declines with age (e.g. Hulicka, 1982; Kausler, 1982). In contrast, the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e suggests that the eld e r l y perform as well as, i f not better, than young participants. Thus, one can ask: If given a variety of tasks, do young and e l d e r l y individuals d i f f e r in t h e i r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to prospective memory fa i l u r e s ? These three questions w i l l be examined in greater d e t a i l below. Are prospective and retrospective memory dif f e r e n t ? The question of whether prospective and retrospective memory are d i f f e r e n t can be examined from three d i f f e r e n t perspectives, namely, everyday l i f e , empirical research, and t h e o r e t i c a l approaches. Everyday l i f e . Being able to remember information about the past i s important, but remembering to perform intended actions i s just as important, i f not more so (see Mateer, Sohlberg & Crinean, 1987). This i s supported by people's behavior in everyday l i f e . For example, people may use one type of memory strategy to remember information about the past (retrospective memory) and a very d i f f e r e n t strategy to remember to do something tomorrow or next week (prospective memory). To remember information about the past, one may attempt to reconstruct an event using d i a r i e s or photographs; to remember to do something, one may make a mental note or place a relevant object where i t w i l l be seen (Neisser, 1982; West, 1984, 1988). In addition, the b e l i e f s people hold about each other depend on the type of information being remembered. If an individual i s unable to remember information about the past his or her memory i s said to be unreliable, but i f an intended action i s forgotten, the individual i s considered unreliable (Munsat, 1966) . There i s an expectation that an i n d i v i d u a l may be unable to remember something about the past or that memory may not be overly clear with respect to events that occurred 5 3 some time ago. If that individual does not remember to carry out a number of intended actions, though, i t may cause some concern about his or her a b i l i t y to function independently. Empirical research. Implicit i n the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed e a r l i e r i s the assumption that prospective memory can be studied r e l a t i v e l y independently of retrospective memory. Nevertheless, the few studies that have attempted to compare prospective and retrospective memory performance d i r e c t l y have produced c o n f l i c t i n g findings. Loftus (1971), for example, examined whether the presence of a r e t r i e v a l cue and the number of intervening items would a f f e c t prospective memory performance. Participants were asked to name t h e i r b i r t h state after answering a series of either 5 or 15 questions (the prospective memory task), with the l a s t question always being the same. Half of the participants were t o l d the content of the l a s t question, half were not. Performance was better with fewer questions, and when participants had been given a r e t r i e v a l cue than when they had been given more questions, or no cue. Loftus concluded that both prospective and retrospective memory are influenced by these factors (cf. Lay, 1988). 3 Baddeley and Wilkins (1984) have claimed that much of prospective memory may involve retrospective memory. As Meacham (1982; see also Munsat, 1966) has noted though, memory must necessarily be from, but not necessarily about, the past. 54 In a second study, Wilkins and Baddeley (1978) compared performance on a retrospective memory task (free r e c a l l of a series of word l i s t s ) with performance on a prospective memory task (remembering to push a button at s p e c i f i e d times). Participants with high r e c a l l performance did not remember to push the button as often as those with low r e c a l l performance. These results suggest that, at least with respect to these p a r t i c u l a r tasks, performance on retrospective and prospective memory tasks i s negatively related. In a t h i r d study, Meacham and Leiman (1982, Study 1) also assessed retrospective memory by asking p a r t i c i p a n t s to r e c a l l l i s t s of unrelated words. The prospective memory task involved returning either four or eight postcards on speci f i e d dates over a period of 32 days. Performance on the prospective memory task was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with performance on the retrospective memory task. K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987) has argued that the absence of a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between retrospective and prospective memory i n the Meacham and Leiman (1982) and Wilkins and Baddeley (1978) studies may be due to the fact that prospective and retrospective memory were assessed using two d i f f e r e n t types of information. The absence of a positi v e c o r r e l a t i o n could, therefore, be due to the tasks rather than a difference between memory for past information and memory for intended actions. To determine whether 55 performance on prospective and retrospective memory tasks was correlated when performance was based on the same information, K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987, Experiment 1) asked students to delive r a verbal message. After completing one experiment, students were asked to see a second investigator in another room for an additional experiment. As an apparent aside, the participants were requested to ask the second investigator for a specified participant's r e s u l t s . When asked, the second experimenter indicated that she was unable to find the results and, in turn, asked the participant to remind her to look for them at the end of the session ( i . e . the second experiment). Of intere s t i n t h i s study was whether the participant would remind the second experimenter to look for the results (the prospective memory task) and further, whether the participant would remember the name of the s p e c i f i e d person (the retrospective memory task; see also Harris, 1984). No correlation was observed between remembering to de l i v e r the message and remembering the content of the message. These results suggest that even when the same information i s used for both types of task, prospective and retrospective memory appear to involve separate processes. Theories. T y p i c a l l y , studies of prospective memory have been conducted without reference to any t h e o r e t i c a l perspective and, as a consequence, the l i t e r a t u r e has been quite diverse. However, three approaches have been 56 developed. Two of these deal primarily with prospective memory and therefore have l i t t l e , i f anything, to say about whether prospective and retrospective memory are d i f f e r e n t . One t h e o r e t i c a l approach emphasizes the time monitoring aspect of prospective memory, and i s exemplified by Harris and Wilkins' (1982) Test-Wait-Test-Exit (TWTE) model which i s based on M i l l e r , Galanter and Pribram's (1960) Test-Operate-Test-Exit (TOTE) model for carrying out plans. TWTE i s explanatory rather than descriptive (Harris & Wilkins, 1982). In the model, an individual p e r i o d i c a l l y makes tests to determine i f an independently functioning process has been completed, thus indicating that i t i s time to do something else (e.g. whether the washing machine has finished i t s cycle so the clothes can be put into the dryer) . I f a test indicates that the process of interest has not been completed, the individual must wait for a given period of time before making another t e s t . The use an ind i v i d u a l can, or does, make of the time during the waiting periods may depend on several factors, including how accurately he or she can judge the passage of real time, the amount of e f f o r t involved i n making the checks or tests, and the costs associated with f i n i s h i n g the process too early or too l a t e (Harris & Wilkins, 1982; cf. Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985). Tasks that require t h i s type of monitoring strategy vary with respect to the amount of control an individual has over the rate at which the task 57 proceeds. For example, an individual has more control over when a garden sprinkler i s turned o f f than when water in a k e t t l e reaches the b o i l i n g point. Tasks may also vary with respect to the definiteness of the beginning and end points. For example, a dishwasher cycle has very s p e c i f i c boundaries. In contrast, cooking a roast involves more di f f u s e boundaries. According to Harris and Wilkins' (1982) model, prospective memory f a i l u r e s may occur for three reasons. F i r s t , one may f a i l to monitor the task during the course of the process. For example, one may put a cake i n the oven and then forget that i t i s there u n t i l he or she smells something burning. Second, one may' monitor the time, but f a i l to monitor i t for a s p e c i f i c task. For example, one may intend to take the cake out of the oven before leaving the house to run an errand, yet when the p a r t i c u l a r time arrives, the individual may simply leave the house, forgetting to take the cake out f i r s t . Third, one may not remember the test c r i t e r i o n . For example, one may forget to check on the cake at 3:15 (or 40 minutes after i t was put in the oven) because he or she forgets how long the cake needs to cook. The second t h e o r e t i c a l approach to prospective memory emphasizes the effects of non-cognitive factors on performance. For example, Meacham (1982) has suggested that the context within which an individual i s operating i s 58 heavily influenced by motivational l e v e l , which i n turn, w i l l a f f e c t whether an intended action w i l l be remembered and/or car r i e d out. Since motivation may af f e c t performance on both retrospective and prospective memory tasks, Meacham (1988) revised his e a r l i e r p o s i t i o n by claiming that prospective memory performance i s not affected by motivation per se, but by the interpersonal r e l a t i o n s within which an ind i v i d u a l i s enmeshed. In so doing, Meacham (1988) emphasized that prospective memory performance i s affected by the so c i a l context within which an ind i v i d u a l i s operating (cf. Meacham, 1982; Sinnott, 1986b). The notion that interpersonal relations are an important factor in prospective remembering i s an int e r e s t i n g one, yet these alone cannot account for prospective memory performance on a l l tasks i n a l l sit u a t i o n s . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to see, for example, how interpersonal relations could always account for why one might forget to pick up a book from the l i b r a r y . The value of Meacham's (1982; 1988) th e o r e t i c a l work l i e s i n the idea that prospective memory performance may be affected, at least p a r t i a l l y , by non-cognitive factors. This view has been echoed by Winograd (1988). As noted e a r l i e r , procrastination, motivation, incentive and commitment may a l l a f f e c t prospective memory performance. With the exception of Winograd's paper, though, l i t t l e e f f o r t has 59 been devoted to comparing retrospective and prospective memory. The t h i r d t h e o r e t i c a l approach to prospective memory holds that prospective and retrospective memory involve s i m i l a r processes and that making a d i s t i n c t i o n between them has l i t t l e value other than to draw attention to an aspect of memory that has large l y been ignored. Baddeley and Wilkins (1984), for example, claim that d i s t i n c t i o n s found i n the retrospective memory l i t e r a t u r e , such as short-term/long-term and episodic/semantic, also apply to prospective memory. Despite t h i s claim, there i s some suggestion that prospective and retrospective memory are not i d e n t i c a l (e.g. K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982; Winograd, 1988). Do se l f - r e p o r t and objective measures of prospective memory  correlate? I t has been argued that prospective memory i s an important topic for research because of i t s relevance for everyday l i f e (e.g. Baddeley & Wilkins, 1984; Sinnott, 1989a; West, 1984) . Yet, the extent to which the ex i s t i n g prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e provides information regarding an individual's perceived a b i l i t y to function on a day-to-day basis and his or her actual a b i l i t y to remember (and presumably carry out) intended actions i s unclear. The majority of studies i n the l i t e r a t u r e have assessed prospective memory by requiring participants to perform 6 0 s p e c i f i c tasks. These tasks are objective i n that they are ea s i l y scorable by some c r i t e r i o n (which varies from study to study, even for the same type of task) . Although they are s i m i l a r to a c t i v i t i e s participants perform i n everyday l i f e , performance on the tasks may not accurately r e f l e c t the d i f f i c u l t i e s people may experience i n remembering to perform intended actions in general. At least four methodological procedures may l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of many prospective memory studies. F i r s t , the range of tasks used by researchers has been somewhat limited (see Table 1). In many studies, participants have been asked to make phone c a l l s or mail postcards. Other a c t i v i t i e s , such as passing along a verbal message, remembering to pick up something at the store on the way home from work, or completing important documents in a sp e c i f i e d manner, have largely been ignored (cf. Sinnott, 1986a; West, 1984, 1988). Second, related to t h i s i s the (implicit) assumption that asking participants to perform one task (e.g. phoning the experimenter) w i l l y i e l d results that are si m i l a r to those that would be observed with a very d i f f e r e n t task. However, there i s some evidence which suggests that performance on one prospective task may not generalize to performance on a second task (e.g. Dobbs & Rule, 1987; West, 1984, 1988). 61 Third, in many studies, participants have been asked to carry out the same task several times over the course of the investigation (e.g. Meacham & Leiman, 1982; Meacham & Singer, 1977; Moscovitch & Minde, c i t e d i n Moscovitch, 1982; Orne, 1970) . This does not generally occur i n everyday l i f e . Although an ind i v i d u a l may perform the same a c t i v i t y (e.g. making a phone c a l l ) several times during the course of a day or a week, the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s are probably not i d e n t i c a l (e.g. one does not always phone the same person). Fourth, participants are often asked to carry out the prospective memory task(s) without being given a rati o n a l e for doing so, other than because they are p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a memory study. If participants are not given a reasonable rationale for performing a p a r t i c u l a r task, however, they may not carry out the intention, not because they do not remember i t , but because they do not wish to do i t . Based on the objective data, a researcher i s unable to di s t i n g u i s h between these two alternatives. Conversely, i f par t i c i p a n t s are extremely motivated to do a memory study, they may make every e f f o r t to remember and carry out an intention, even though they may not make as much e f f o r t on a d a i l y basis. Once again, the objective data are affected by unknown biases. A researcher may use a number of techniques to control such biases; however, these techniques may not be overly successful (see Moscovitch & Minde, c i t e d in Moscovitch, 1982, for an example). 62 One way i n which the external v a l i d i t y of prospective memory research can be improved i s through the use of s e l f -report measures such as memory d i a r i e s , questionnaires and ch e c k l i s t s . Although there are problems with using s e l f -report measures to assess memory performance, the d i f f i c u l t i e s are not insurmountable (see Herrmann, 1984; Morris, 1984). One of the major d i f f i c u l t i e s with s e l f -report measures i s t h e i r lack of o b j e c t i v i t y . Since they rel y on long-term memory to some extent, they are biased by what people can remember about t h e i r memory f a i l u r e s . People's b e l i e f s about t h e i r own memory may be inaccurate for a number of reasons (Baddeley, 1979; Herrmann, 1982; Shlechter & Herrmann, c i t e d in Crovitz, Cordoni, Daniel, & Perlman, 1984). For example, people may not know the severity of t h e i r memory problems. Memory f a i l u r e s probably occur quite frequently, but since most f a i l u r e s do not have important consequences, there i s l i t t l e need to keep a mental record of them (e.g. Wilkins & Baddeley, 1978). Memory f a i l u r e s that disrupt one's l i f e or cause embarrassment, however, are l i k e l y to be remembered. As a re s u l t , rare but consequential memory lapses may be reported as occurring more frequently than they actually do. Despite the problems associated with using s e l f - r e p o r t measures, they allow both overt and covert f a i l u r e s to be reported, thus providing a way to gather information about memory functioning that would be d i f f i c u l t to acquire 63 through f i e l d or laboratory research (Sunderland, Harris & Baddeley, 1984). For example, self-report measures can be used to determine how individuals perceive t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember to perform intended or planned a c t i v i t i e s . These perceptions can then be compared with t h e i r performance on objective prospective memory tasks, such as mailing postcards or making phone c a l l s . Two studies involving self-report assessments of prospective memory performance have been conducted. Three additional studies have also included s e l f - r e p o r t measures, but these have not involved self-assessments of prospective memory performance ( E l l i s , 1988; Meacham & Kushner, 1980; West, 1984). In one study, Mateer et a l . , (1987) asked both head-injury patients and individuals with no known brain i n j u r i e s to complete a questionnaire assessing the perceived frequency of various types of memory f a i l u r e s . Both the head-injured and the normal controls reported having the most d i f f i c u l t y with attention/prospective memory and the least d i f f i c u l t y with historical/overlearned information. In the second study, Dobbs and Rule (1987) asked normal, healthy adults to complete a metamemory questionnaire (that, in part, assessed t h e i r perceptions of t h e i r prospective memory a b i l i t i e s ) . The participants were also asked to perform two prospective memory tasks (asking for a red pen at a specified time and including the date and time on the top of a questionnaire). Performance on the 64 prospective memory tasks was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with s e l f - r a t i n g s of prospective memory performance. Do young and elderly individuals d i f f e r in t h e i r  s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to prospective memory fa i l u r e s ? Several studies have examined the effects of age on prospective memory performance. The majority of these studies have indicated that e l d e r l y participants perform as well as, i f not better than, younger part i c i p a n t s on prospective memory tasks. One exception i s a study by Schonfield and Shooter (cited i n Welford, 1958) i n which participants were asked to perform a prospective memory task as part of a more elaborate a c t i v i t y . . The participants were to raise four flaps, one at a time, to reveal a simple pattern of dots. Their task was to discover what pattern and po s i t i o n contained a dot that did not occur in any of the other patterns. As well, they were instructed to press a Morse key before giving t h e i r response (the prospective memory task). The mean number of key presses omitted per indi v i d u a l increased with age. These results contrast with those obtained by Poon and Schaffer (cited in West, 1984) and Moscovitch and Minde (cited in Moscovitch, 1982). In Poon and Schaffer's (cited in West, 1984) study, participants were asked to make 25 phone c a l l s at d i f f e r e n t times over a three week period. Half of the par t i c i p a n t s were asked to make the c a l l s at a time designated by the 65 experimenter, the others were asked to make them at a s e l f -selected time. The eld e r l y participants remembered to c a l l on time more frequently than the younger p a r t i c i p a n t s . Similar results were obtained by Moscovitch and Minde (cited i n Moscovitch, 1982). In t h e i r study, young and old participants were asked to c a l l a telephone answering service at spe c i f i e d times. In one experiment, the participants were asked to c a l l at the same time everyday for two weeks. The s p e c i f i c time was chosen by the part i c i p a n t . Eight out of ten young people missed at least one appointment, and some missed several. However, only one of the ten older participants missed an appointment. The res u l t s seemed to r e f l e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' use of memory aids; older participants used external memory aids more than the younger participants, and the younger individuals who trusted t h e i r memories ( i . e . used internal memory aids, i f anything) were the ones who missed the appointments. A second experiment, in which the participants were asked to c a l l the experimenter once a week, at a time chosen by the experimenter, produced s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . In a t h i r d experiment, the participants were asked not to use external memory aids, but rather, to make a mental note of the appointment times and to keep the phone number i n a place where i t would not be e a s i l y noticed. With t h i s procedure, approximately half of the older participants missed an 66 appointment, but they were s t i l l no worse than the younger individuals. The studies reviewed above are somewhat a r t i f i c i a l , since participants were required to perform the same r e l a t i v e l y meaningless a c t i v i t y at s i m i l a r times over the course of the study. Ordinarily, though, one must remember to perform various a c t i v i t i e s at d i f f e r e n t times. More r e a l i s t i c studies of prospective memory have been conducted by West (1984, 1988), Sinnott (1986a), and Dobbs and Rule (1987) . In the f i r s t study reported by West (1984), participants were asked to keep a diary, that was representative of t h e i r memory a c t i v i t i e s , for one week. Approximately 45% of a l l entries involved prospective memory (cf. Crovitz et a l . , 1984). Contrary to Moscovitch and Minde's findings (cited in Moscovitch, 1982) memory strategies did not seem to vary with age (see also Jackson, Bogers & Kerstholt, 1988; West, 1988). In a second investigation, an in-home interview, that included a number of memory tests such as remembering a conversation and the location of objects in the home, was conducted. Participants were also asked to perform several prospective memory tasks: remembering an appointment, locating a folder for the interviewer at the end of the interview, making a phone c a l l and leaving a message indicating how the participant remembered to c a l l , and mailing a postcard two 67 days a f t e r the interview with a message in d i c a t i n g how the participant remembered to perform the task. With the exception of including the message on the postcard, older participants performed just as well as, i f not better, than younger individuals (cf. West, 1988). Sinnott's (1986a) study supported the findings obtained by West (1984). In t h i s investigation, individuals p a r t i c i p a t i n g in an ongoing longitudinal research project on aging were tested during a routine stay at the research center. They were asked two types of questions related to everyday a c t i v i t i e s . Some of the questions were considered prospective in nature since they referred to information required for planned actions; others were considered incidental since they were not related to planned actions or experiences with respect to the participants. Older individuals performed as well as the younger participants on the prospective items, but the younger individuals performed better on incidental items. Sinnott (1986b), though, noted that absolute performance on some everyday memory tasks may be influenced by age, but the rate at which individuals forget does not seem to be age-dependent (see also Dobbs & Rule, 1987). In a t h i r d study, Dobbs and Rule (1987) asked participants (near the beginning of the study) to remember to ask for a red pen p r i o r to drawing two shapes (l a t e r in the study) and to put the date and time of completion in the 68 upper l e f t corner of a questionnaire that they would be given to f i l l i n at home. The oldest individuals (70 years of age and up) forgot to ask for the red pen more often than the youngest in d i v i d u a l s (in t h e i r 30's), but there was no difference i n performance for participants between 30 and 69 years of age. Performance on the date and time task declined with increasing age. This appears to have been a r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t task, since only about 50 to 60 percent of the two youngest groups remembered to put either the date or the time anywhere at the top of the questionnaire. When cre d i t was given only i f both the date and the time had been included in the s p e c i f i e d location, no age differences were observed. Once again, the results obtained by Dobbs and Rule indicate that performance on prospective memory tasks does not decline, at least up to about 70 years of age. The comparable performance of e l d e r l y and young participants on prospective memory tasks i s i n marked contrast to what the elderly t y p i c a l l y believe about t h e i r memory and to how they perform on a number of standard laboratory tests of memory (see Kausler, 1985). These apparently c o n f l i c t i n g findings (between prospective memory studies and studies of cognitive decline in general) can be accounted for by at least two factors. F i r s t , the stereotype regarding memory changes with age may be so pervasive that impairment may be exaggerated by older individuals; they may be more aware of memory problems 69 and therefore may report memory f a i l u r e s as occurring more frequently than they actually do. The same everyday behavior (such as forgetting a person's name or where one has placed the car keys) that i s taken l i g h t l y when one i s young, may become a matter of great concern with advancing age i f i t i s regarded as a sign of mental deterioration. Thus, older individuals may fe e l that memory f a i l u r e s are more i n d i c a t i v e of memory problems than younger individuals (cf. Erber, 1989; Erber, Szuchman, & Rothberg, 1990). It may also be the case that, as people age, they forget how imperfect memory i s even for young adults. They may view memory f a i l u r e s as part of an expected decline rather than something they have experienced throughout t h e i r l i v e s . Several questionnaire studies support t h i s view. For example, Perlmutter (1978) and Z e l i n s k i , Gilewski and Thompson (1980) found that older i n d i v i d u a l s reported having poorer memories than younger ones. In contrast, Harris & Sunderland (cited in Sunderland, Harris & Baddeley, 1984), Sunderland, Harris and Gleave (1984) and Bennett-Levy and Powell (1980) found better s e l f - r a t i n g s of memory a b i l i t y for older individuals than younger ones. Chaffin and Herrmann (1983) found l i t t l e difference between t h e i r young and old pa r t i c i p a n t s . It i s not clear why the expected memory declines are not always r e f l e c t e d in questionnaire scores. Perhaps older individuals experience fewer memory f a i l u r e s because they 70 are less active than younger individuals, use more strategies and memory aids to avoid f a i l u r e s , or are less affected by the consequences of t h e i r memory f a i l u r e s (Morris, 1984; Jackson et a l . , 1988). A second factor that could account for the discrepancies between the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e and the l i t e r a t u r e on general cognitive declines with age i s that i n the l a t t e r research, subject selection c r i t e r i a , tasks, procedures, or a l l three variables may be biased in favour of the young participants. If t h i s i s indeed the case, i t i s not surprising that these types of studies have t y p i c a l l y concluded that memory performance declines with age. Even i f the a b i l i t y to learn, retain and use new information does decline with age, i t may not be perceived as a serious problem in everyday l i f e (e.g. Jackson et. a l , 1988; Sunderland, Watts, Baddeley & Harris, 1986). D i f f i c u l t y in remembering to perform intended actions may be considered more serious. Summary The prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e summarized i n Table 1 raises three very important issues that have not been adequately addressed. F i r s t , the question of whether prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes has produced ambiguous empirical data and has received l i t t l e t h e o r e t i c a l attention. Both everyday experience and a 71 number of empirical studies indicate that prospective and retrospective memory may not involve exactly the same processes. The general conclusion, though, has been that they are related (Meacham, 1982; Sinnott, 1989a; Wilkins & Baddeley, 1978). Further investigation i s needed on t h i s issue. Second, the question of whether s e l f - r e p o r t and objective measures of prospective memory correlate has received v i r t u a l l y no consideration, since the empirical work has not generally included s e l f - r e p o r t measures (but see Dobbs & Rule, 1987; Mateer et a l . , 1987). Nevertheless, s e l f - r e p o r t measures may provide interesting information regarding prospective memory performance that i s d i s t i n c t from that derived from objective measures. Third, the question of whether prospective memory performance changes with age has been the focus of several studies. For the most part, these investigations have indicated that e l d e r l y participants perform as well as, i f not better than, younger participants on prospective memory tasks. However, participants i n the middle age range have either not been included at a l l , or they have been included in one or both of the other age groups. This implies that age i s assumed to be l i n e a r l y related to performance on prospective memory tasks. Although t h i s may be a reasonable assumption, i t i s also possible that there i s a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n between the two variables. Some anecdotal reports 72 support t h i s hypothesis. Individuals r a i s i n g young children or i n the process of making major career changes often complain of memory d i f f i c u l t i e s . In contrast, individuals whose children have recently l e f t home, or those who have just r e t i r e d , often claim that t h e i r memory i s better than i t ever was. I t would appear, therefore, that i n c l u s i o n of middle aged indivi d u a l s (as a d i s t i n c t group) i n studies examining prospective memory performance with age may be very i n s i g h t f u l . Overview of the Present Research These three questions ( i . e . whether prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes, whether sel f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures are correlated, and whether prospective memory performance varies as a function of age) , were the focus of the research presented in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . The research was based on two major premises. F i r s t , since carrying out intended actions at appropriate times i s an integral part of everyday l i f e , i t was f e l t that a variety of everyday tasks should be used. Second, since everyone has, or i s , l i k e l y to experience a f a i l u r e to carry out a planned or intended a c t i v i t y , i t was f e l t that the general public as opposed to college students should serve as participants Five studies are presented. The f i r s t three investigations involved the development of a memory diary, a memory questionnaire, and a metamemory questionnaire, 73 respectively. These were then used i n Studies 4 and 5. Study 1 As mentioned, many of the studies i n the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e have required participants to make phone c a l l s or mail postcards. Although these tasks do have some relevance for everyday functioning, l i t t l e attention has been given to whether these are the types of tasks people are l i k e l y to forget in "real l i f e " . I t may be that some types of tasks are rarely forgotten. For example, business, school or s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s may not be forgotten as often as remembering to take something (such as a l e t t e r , house keys, books, papers). It may also be the case that i t i s not the type of task, as such, that affects remembering, but the nature of the s p e c i f i c intention. Factors other than memory, for example, the perceived pleasantness or importance of the intention may influence what i s remembered. The f i r s t study was conducted to determine the kinds of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience in d a i l y l i f e . Participants were asked to keep a memory diary of t h e i r prospective memory f a i l u r e s for a period of two weeks. Four general classes of memory f a i l u r e s were examined: something one does on a regular basis, something one planned or intended to do, something one intended to take with them, and something one intended to ask or t e l l someone. The 7 4 study also examined several factors that may influence those intentions that are forgotten. Study 2 Since participants in Study 1 were asked to report memory f a i l u r e s only, the data could be affected by reporting bias. That i s , memory f a i l u r e s that were annoying or embarrassing may have been remembered and reported more frequently than memory f a i l u r e s that did not have important consequences (Herrmann, 1982; Morris, 1984). Morris (1984) has suggested one can reduce t h i s bias by asking participants about s p e c i f i c , rather than general, memory f a i l u r e s . Therefore, based on information reported i n the f i r s t study, a memory questionnaire that assessed memory f a i l u r e s for s p e c i f i c types of intentions was developed. In addition to providing a r e p l i c a t i o n of Study 1, the second study also examined the frequency with which various types of memory f a i l u r e s occurred during a one-week period. Study 3 While the f i r s t two studies focused on the type of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience, the t h i r d study was concerned with how adults at di f f e r e n t ages perceive t h e i r memory. A metamemory questionnaire, that was modeled a f t e r Dixon and Hultsch's (1983a, 1983b) Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire, was developed to assess people's perceptions of t h e i r memory a b i l i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember intended actions. 75 An individual's a b i l i t y to remember intentions (and presumably perform them) may, to some extent at least, be influenced by b e l i e f s about his or her a b i l i t y to remember in everyday situations (Hultsch, Dixon & Hertzog, 1985; Herrmann, 1982, 1984; Martin & Jones, 1984; Mateer et a l . , 1987; see also Hulicka, 1982; Z e l i n s k i et a l . , 1980). For example, memory strategies may rarely be used by an in d i v i d u a l who feels that his or her memory i s extremely good. Conversely, i f an in d i v i d u a l expects or perceives that his or her memory i s declining with age, memory strategies may be used quite frequently. Although several researchers have developed metamemory questionnaires, these questionnaires have t y p i c a l l y been designed to assess everyday memory functioning in general, p a r t i c u l a r l y in head injury patients (e.g. Sunderland, Harris & Baddeley, 1984; Sunderland, Harris & Gleave, 1984). For a review of many of these questionnaires, see Herrmann (1982, 1984). A number of these measures contain items related to prospective memory, but these are not distinguished from those that address more general issues (e.g. Herrmann & Neisser, 1978; Perlmutter, 1978). One exception i s a questionnaire constructed and used by Dobbs and Rule (1987). Although t h e i r questionnaire contains several items r e l a t i n g to prospective memory, i t was not used in the present research for two reasons. F i r s t , the author wanted to develop a metamemory 76 questionnaire that assessed people's b e l i e f s about, and attitudes towards, t h e i r memory. It has been suggested that people's perceptions of t h e i r own memory may change with age and that people's perceptions of t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s may be just as important as t h e i r actual a b i l i t i e s (e.g. Dixon fie Hultsch, 1983b; Hultsch et a l . , 1985). Dobbs and Rule's questionnaire seemed inappropriate for t h i s purpose since i t addressed the types and perceived seriousness of memory problems for a number of memory tasks, rather than perceptions per se. Second, the author wanted to develop a r e l i a b l e measure that would be sensitive to differences in self-perceptions as a function of age and that could be used in conjunction with objective measures of memory performance on a number of tasks (see Studies 4 and 5). Dobbs and Rule (1987) do not report psychometric data for t h e i r questionnaire. Moreover, no age differences were observed for the prospective memory questions. One questionnaire that does examine people's perceptions about t h e i r memory functioning in everyday l i f e i s Dixon and Hultsch's (1983a, 1983b) Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire. Although t h i s questionnaire i s both r e l i a b l e and sensi t i v e to age differences, i t was deemed inappropriate for the present purposes because i t does not contain items pertaining s p e c i f i c a l l y to prospective memory. Nevertheless, the methods used to construct the questionnaire described in Study 3 were 77 s i m i l a r to those used by Dixon and Hultsch. Thus, not surprisin g l y , the re s u l t i n g Memory Questionnaire i s s i m i l a r to the Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire. Studies 4 and 5 Studies 4 and 5 examined the three questions discussed i n d e t a i l e a r l i e r . Namely, whether prospective and retrospective memory measures are correlated, whether s e l f -report and objective measures of prospective memory are related, and whether prospective memory performance varies across the adult l i f e span. Both studies used the s e l f -report measures developed in the f i r s t three studies, as well as behavioral measures of prospective memory and objective measures of retrospective memory. In order to allow comparisons with previous studies, the behavioral measures involved making phone c a l l s and mailing materials. In addition, prospective memory was assessed by asking participants to complete several tasks in a sp e c i f i e d manner (cf. Dobbs & Rule, 1987; West, 1984, 1988). A semi-structured interview that assessed memory for information about the study (e.g. the experimenter's name, why the study was being conducted) constituted the retrospective memory measure in Study 4. In Study 5, retrospective memory was assessed using a number of standard laboratory tasks in addition to the interview. Study 4 was conducted to determine how adults l i v i n g in the community use t h e i r memories everyday. This was 78 primarily a diary study; participants were asked to keep a d a i l y diary for a period of four weeks. As in Study 1, the d i a r i e s assessed memory for intended actions. Meacham and Kushner (1980) have noted that memories for intentions can be divided into three categories. F i r s t , ,an i n d i v i d u a l could remember about a planned a c t i v i t y and carry i t out. Second, a person may plan to do something, forget about i t , and never remember about i t again. Third, one could plan on carrying out an a c t i v i t y , forget about i t , and eventually, for whatever reason, remember that the intention was not s a t i s f i e d . (This i s not to suggest that the i n d i v i d u a l c a r r i e d out the planned a c t i v i t y , only that the intention was remembered) . This was the type of information recorded in Study 1. In Study 4, though, participants were asked to record a l l unique or unusual intentions they had planned to perform, regardless of whether or not they remembered to do them at the appropriate time. That i s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to record intentions that were remembered and completed on time, as well as those that were remembered aft e r the action should have been performed. Thus, in contrast to the f i r s t study, the procedure used in the fourth study provides a baseline against which the proportion of forgotten intentions can be measured. Study 5 involved a r e p l i c a t i o n and extension of Study 4. The primary focus of t h i s study was on the r e l a t i o n between prospective and retrospective memory. To accomplish 79 t h i s , performance on several laboratory tests of memory (e.g remembering prose, a l i s t of words, a sequence of numbers) was compared with performance on both se l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory. This d i s s e r t a t i o n presents exploratory research. The studies were conducted, either i n whole or in part, as f i e l d investigations. As a result, the reader may find the lack of experimental control somewhat disconcerting. However, given that much of the existing l i t e r a t u r e may be limited by the number and types of tasks used, by the s p e c i f i c procedures employed, and by the age range(s) of the participants, i t was considered essential that investigations that reduced or eliminated these potential sources of bias be carried out. Conducting the research i n t h i s manner created some d i f f i c u l t i e s , but i t also provided several i n t e r e s t i n g findings. 80 STUDY 1 The f i r s t study was a p i l o t study that examined the types of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience and explored some of the factors that may a f f e c t prospective memory performance. Method Participants Eight graduate students (four males, four females) between 22 and 33 years of age (mean age 28.0 years) par t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s investigation. Materials and Procedure Participants were informed that t h i s was a study on prospective memory. They were given a memory diary and asked to keep i t for two consecutive weeks. The diary consisted of a set of instructions and 14 i d e n t i c a l "information (diary) sheets". Additional diary pages were available for those who needed them. Participants were asked to complete one of the information sheets in as much d e t a i l as possible every time they remembered they had not done something they had intended to (cf. Crovitz et a l . , 1984; E l l i s , 1988; Reason & Mycielska, 1982). Each completed sheet thus constituted a record of a prospective memory f a i l u r e that was remembered and subsequently reported. Each information sheet consisted of 11 s p e c i f i c items (see Appendix A) that can be grouped as follows. F i r s t , in order to examine the types of memory f a i l u r e s people 81 experience and to determine whether these could be c l a s s i f i e d i n a meaningful manner, partic i p a n t s were asked to specify the a c t i v i t y (event) they had forgotten and then c l a s s i f y i t into one of f i v e categories. The categories were: (a) something they did on a regular basis; (b) something they said they would do or that they had planned to do; (c) something they had planned to take with them; (d) something they intended to t e l l someone; or (e) some other category defined by the participant. These categories were based on findings reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e on everyday memory f a i l u r e s (e.g. Harris & Sunderland, c i t e d in Harris, 1984; Reason, 1979). Second, as noted in the Introduction, time i s an important component of prospective memory performance. To examine t h i s variable's influence in greater d e t a i l , two measures r e l a t i n g to time were assessed. Participants were asked to indicate when they remembered about an a c t i v i t y r e l a t i v e to when i t should have been performed (relative time). This measure examined whether there i s a time frame within which forgotten intentions w i l l be remembered. Participants were also asked to indicate at what point during the day they remembered the intention. This measure examined whether there i s a p a r t i c u l a r time during the day (perhaps a time during which one can r e f l e c t on his or her a c t i v i t i e s for the day) when one i s l i k e l y to remember forgotten intentions. 82 Third, based on findings reported by Meacham & Kushner (1980), i t was thought that an intended action could be forgotten because i t was perceived as being unimportant and/or unpleasant. To examine t h i s , participants were asked to complete four rating scales. Two of these scales assessed the importance and pleasantness of the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y that had been forgotten. The other two assessed the importance and pleasantness of the general type of a c t i v i t y (e.g. making a phone c a l l to a p a r t i c u l a r friend vs. making phone c a l l s in general). The importance ratings were done on, four-point scales that ranged from not at a l l  important to very important. The pleasantness ratings were done on seven-point scales that ranged from very unpleasant to very pleasant. Fourth, the use of memory aids has received much interest in the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e (e.g. Harris, 1978, 1980; Kreutzer et a l . , 1975; Meacham & Colombo, 1980; Meacham & Dumitru, 1976; Meacham & Leiman, 1982; West, 1984) . To examine the use of memory aids i n t h i s study, participants were asked to indicate whether they had used a memory aid to remember the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y and, i f so, whether they had used an internal aid such as rehearsing the information, or an external aid such as a written note. F i n a l l y , participants were asked to speculate about why they may have forgotten about the event and to provide any additional comments they f e l t were relevant. 83 In summary, the f i r s t study was conducted to determine the types of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience and to examine some of the factors that may a f f e c t prospective memory. Five s p e c i f i c questions were examined: (a) Do the four categories of a c t i v i t i e s (e.g. a regular a c t i v i t y , something one intended to t e l l someone) account for most, i f not a l l , of the prospective memory f a i l u r e s reported or are additional (or alternative) categories needed? (b) Are participants more aware of memory f a i l u r e s at c e r t a i n times of the day than at other times? (c) Are the reported prospective memory f a i l u r e s s i m i l a r to the general type of intentions with respect to t h e i r perceived importance and pleasantness? (d) Is the length of time between when an a c t i v i t y should have been completed and when i t was remembered related to the perceived importance and/or pleasantness of the intention? and (e) Is the use of a memory aid related to the perceived importance or pleasantness of the reported a c t i v i t y ? Results and Discussion A t o t a l of 56 prospective memory f a i l u r e s (range 2 to 14) were reported. Males reported a t o t a l of 21 items (mean = 5.25); females reported a t o t a l of 35 (mean = 8.75) items. The means were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , t(6) = 1.43. The number of entries i s small compared to other diary studies (e.g. E l l i s , 1988; West, 1984). This i s probably 84 due, i n part, to the type of items participants were asked to report ( i . e . memory f a i l u r e s only as opposed to both remembered and forgotten a c t i v i t i e s as i n E l l i s ' , 1988, study) . As i n any diary study, the number of memory f a i l u r e s reported may also be due t o participants not wishing to report a p a r t i c u l a r memory f a i l u r e or never remembering they had intended to do some pa r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y . Further, although the number of participants in th i s study i s quite small, this alone i s u n l i k e l y to account for the number of diary entries since E l l i s used a similar number of volunteers. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the memory f a i l u r e s One of the main questions of interest in t h i s study was whether a four-category c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system could be used to account for the majority of the diary entries. To examine t h i s , participants were asked to c l a s s i f y each of t h e i r prospective memory f a i l u r e s into one of the following categories: (a) something they did on a regular basis; (b) something they said they would do or that they had planned to so; (c) something they had planned to take with them; (d) something they intended to t e l l someone; or (e) some other category s p e c i f i e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t . 4 4 Two alternative approaches were considered, but neither provided much information about the entries. For example, the approach used by Meacham and Kushner (1980) did l i t t l e more than divide the entries into descriptive categories such as "write or mail something", "take someone something" and "get something". The step vs. pulse d i s t i n c t i o n proposed by E l l i s (1988) also seemed 85 A l l of the entries could be c l a s s i f i e d into one of the f i r s t four categories. 5 Of the 56 items reported, 9 were categorized as "Something you do on a regular basis", 36 were c l a s s i f i e d as "Something you said you would do or planned to do", 6 were categorized as "Something you planned to take with you", and 5 were c l a s s i f i e d as "Something you intended to t e l l someone". These differences were s i g n i f i c a n t , x (3) = 46.72, p_ < .001. As might be expected based on the number of responses in each category, more items were c l a s s i f i e d as "Something you said you would do or planned to do" than in the other three categories combined, x 2 (1) = 46. 09, p_ < . 001. Although the four categories could account for a l l of the items participants reported, one d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s that a p a r t i c u l a r type of intention was not always c l a s s i f i e d in the same category. For unsatisfactory since i t was often d i f f i c u l t to determine whether an entry was an example of a pulse, a step, or something else. Neither of these approaches were considered further. 5 Three of the items reported were c l a s s i f i e d i n the "Other": category. Based on the s p e c i f i c items reported and on the category labels used by the participants, these items were re-categorized into one of the other categories. The three items were: (a) l e f t a (water) tap running unattended, which was categorized as "Something I usually do without much thought or planning" and re-categorized as "Something you do on a regular basis"; (b) buy Comet detergent, which was categorized as "Something I had intended to buy" and re-categorized as "Something you said you would do or planned to do"; and (c) get a form f i l l e d out, which was categorized as "Something I had to do" and re-categorized as "Something you said you would do or planned to do". 86 example, a phone c a l l could be c l a s s i f i e d as something one had said they would do or that they had planned to do, but depending on the nature of the phone c a l l , i t could also be c l a s s i f i e d as something one intended to t e l l someone. Thus, the categories do not simply r e f l e c t the nature of a p a r t i c u l a r intention; they may also r e f l e c t the participant's perception of that a c t i v i t y . Measures r e l a t i n g to time Since time i s an important component of tasks involving prospective memory, two measures r e l a t i n g to time were assessed. The f i r s t examined r e l a t i v e time, that i s , the time between when an intention should have been completed and when i t was remembered. The second examined whether participants were l i k e l y to remember forgotten intentions more at certa i n times of day than at other times. Relative time varied from "at the time" (for remembering where the participant was to phone) to "months" (for remembering to write to individuals met at a conference). In order to examine the data more thoroughly, the items were c l a s s i f i e d into seven time periods. Relative times for two items were too vague ("when found i t with something else" and "when saw item") to categorize. The remaining 54 items were c l a s s i f i e d as follows. Eight items were remembered within the f i r s t 10 minutes, 7 were r e c a l l e d between 10 and 30 minutes l a t e r , 18 were recalled between 1 and 3 hours l a t e r , 5 items were remembered sometime l a t e r 87 the same day, 8 items were remembered the next day, another 2 items were remembered within the week, and the remaining 6 items were remembered more than one week l a t e r . Of the l a t t e r s i x items, only one was remembered within 2 weeks. The other f i v e items were not remembered for 2 months or more. S i g n i f i c a n t l y more items (68%) were remembered within the same day than were remembered l a t e r , x 2 ( l ) = 8.96, p_ < . 01. The second measure r e l a t i n g to time examined when participants remembered t h e i r memory f a i l u r e s during the day. Times varied from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Data were not provided for three of the items. The remaining items were divided into three time periods: (a) 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon; (b) 12:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and c) 6:01 p.m. to midnight. Fifteen items were remembered in the morning and in the evening; the remaining 2 3 items were remembered during the afternoon. These differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, on the basis of these data, i t does not seem that memory f a i l u r e s are l i k e l y to be recalled more at certain times of the day than at other times (although there may be ind i v i d u a l differences). Importance and pleasantness ratings I t i s possible than the perceived importance or pleasantness of an intention might a f f e c t i t s tendency to be forgotten. To examine t h i s , participants were asked to give importance and pleasantness ratings, both for the s p e c i f i c 88 a c t i v i t y that had been forgotten and for the type of a c t i v i t y i n general. The mean ratings for importance of both the forgotten intention and for the type of a c t i v i t y i n general were 2.73 (sd = 0.75) and 2.70 (sd = 0 . 69 ) , respectively. These correspond to ratings of s l i g h t l y to moderately important. The mean ratings for pleasantness of both the reported intention and the type of a c t i v i t y in general were 4.13 (sd = 1.06) and 4.05 (sd = 1.07), respectively. These correspond to neutral on the pleasantness scale. Thus, the reported a c t i v i t i e s may have been forgotten not because they were seen as being less important or more unpleasant than s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s , but because they were not d i s t i n c t i v e (cf. Meacham & Kushner, 1980) . To determine whether ratings of importance and pleasantness were related for both the s p e c i f i c intentions that were forgotten and for the type of intentions in general, Spearman rank correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed. Ratings of importance for the s p e c i f i c intention and ratings of importance for that type of a c t i v i t y in general were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated, r s(54) = .79, p_ < .001. Ratings of pleasantness for the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y and ratings of pleasantness for the type of intention in general were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated, r s(54) = .88, p < .001. However, no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were obtained between the importance and pleasantness ratings either for the 89 s p e c i f i c intention or for the type of intention i n general. These r e s u l t s suggest that the perceived importance and/or pleasantness of an event may account for why i t i s forgotten (cf. K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Meacham & Kushner, 1980). I n t u i t i v e l y , i t would seem that intentions perceived as being quite important or pleasant might be remembered within a shorter period of time than those that are not perceived as being important or pleasant. This was not observed. None of the correlations between r e l a t i v e time and ratings of importance and pleasantness (both for the s p e c i f i c intention that was forgotten and for the a c t i v i t y i n general) were s i g n i f i c a n t . Use of memory aids Many studies in the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e have examined the extent to which external and internal memory aids are used to remember intentions (e.g. Harris, 1978, 1980; Kreutzer et a l . , 1980; Meacham & Colombo, 1980; Meacham & Dumitru, 1976; Meacham & Leiman, 1982; West, 1984) . In t h i s study, participants were asked to note, for each reported memory f a i l u r e , whether they had attempted to remember t h e i r intention using any type of mnemonic. Memory aids were used for 22 of the 56 items reported. Females, reported using more memory aids than males, 19 items vs. 3 items. This difference was s i g n i f i c a n t , x 2 ( l ) = 11.64, p_ < .001. Females used external aids such as writing a note or leaving an object where i t would be seen for 12 of the 90 items. Internal aids such as rehearsing the information or making a mental note, were used for the other 7 a c t i v i t i e s . Males reported using external aids for two of the items. The use of memory aids was not correlated either with the importance of the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y that was forgotten or with the importance of the type of a c t i v i t y in general. In contrast, the use of memory aids was inversely related both to the pleasantness of the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y that was forgotten and to the pleasantness of the type of a c t i v i t y in general. For the part i c u l a r event, r s(54) = -.39, p_ < .002. For the type of event in general, r s(54) = -.38, p < .002. These results suggest that the greater the perceived pleasantness of an event, the less l i k e l y one i s to use a memory aid. Explanations for forgetting and remembering In addition to specifying the prospective memory f a i l u r e and rating i t with respect to importance and pleasantness, participants were asked to indicate why they may have forgotten to carry out t h e i r planned a c t i v i t y . Reasons were provided for 22 of the 56 entries. Half of these involved distractions of some kind: a phone c a l l ; t a l k i n g to someone; being busy with, or thinking about, other things; and being sick (cf. Reason, 1979). Other explanations, which did not seem to belong to any p a r t i c u l a r category, included reasons such as the intention was boring and unrewarding, the individual could not complete the task 91 at an e a r l i e r time (and then subsequently forgot about i t ) and the a c t i v i t y was planned over a week e a r l i e r . Only two of the explanations involved f a i l i n g to use an appropriate reminder. Explanations for why the forgotten events were remembered were provided for 16 of the 56 items. These were reported equally often by males and females. The reminders frequently involved encountering an object or an individual (or a reference to an individual) which was relevant to the forgotten intention. In some instances, the reminder was provided by another individual, for example, by a phone c a l l . Summary This study examined the types of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience and some of the factors that may af f e c t why memory f a i l u r e s occur. Several interesting findings were observed. F i r s t , a four-category c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system was able to account for a l l of the reported memory f a i l u r e s . Second, most memory f a i l u r e s were remembered the same day, as opposed to being remembered either the next day or several days l a t e r . Third, although i t had been expected that there may be a p a r t i c u l a r time of day during which participants would be l i k e l y to remember forgotten intentions, t h i s was not observed. Fourth, as expected, the reported memory f a i l u r e s were s i m i l a r to the general type of intentions with respect to both importance 92 and pleasantness ratings. F i f t h , although i t had been expected that the time between when an intention should have been completed and when i t was remembered ( i . e . r e l a t i v e time) may be related to the perceived importance and/or pleasantness of the intention, t h i s was not observed. Sixth, i t was expected that the use of memory aids may also be related to the perceived importance and pleasantness of the forgotten intention. This was p a r t i a l l y supported: the use of memory aids was related to the pleasantness of the intention, but not to the perceived importance of the intention. Seventh, the participant's gender appeared to influence whether memory aids were used, with females using more aids than males. F i n a l l y , although several memory f a i l u r e s occurred when participants were distracted, many were also remembered when participants encountered an object or an individual relevant to the forgotten intention. These findings were examined in greater d e t a i l in Study 2. 93 STUDY 2 In Study 1, partic i p a n t s were asked to report memory f a i l u r e s only. As a re s u l t , the data may have been affected by reporting biases since annoying or embarrassing memory f a i l u r e s may have been remembered and reported more frequently than those that did not have important consequences (Herrmann, 1982; Morris, 1984). Morris (1984) has suggested that these biases can be reduced by asking parti c i p a n t s about s p e c i f i c rather than general memory f a i l u r e s . Consequently, the second study involved asking parti c i p a n t s to complete a questionnaire that assessed memory f a i l u r e s for s p e c i f i c types of intentions. These intentions were chosen from those reported in Study 1, from questionnaires of everyday memory, and from items generated by the investigator. Study 2 also examined the frequency with which the various intentions were forgotten. Method Participants Eighty-eight second year Psychology students (31 males, 57 females) participated in the study for course c r e d i t . They ranged in age from 18 to 36 years (mean age 20.7 years). Materials Participants were asked to complete a seven page questionnaire that focused on a c t i v i t i e s they may have forgotten during the previous week. The s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s 94 were based on intentions reported i n Study 1, items chosen from various questionnaires of everyday memory, and items of interest to the investigator. The questionnaire, which was composed of seven sections, required approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete (see Appendix B ) . The f i r s t four sections involved the four-category c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system developed i n Study 1. The f i r s t section asked participants whether they had forgotten to carry out a routine action and included items such as brushing or combing hair, brushing teeth, and taking medication. Section 2 asked participants whether they had forgotten to do something they said they would do or had planned to do, and included items such as taking something out of the oven or off the stove, keeping an appointment and making a phone c a l l . The t h i r d section asked participants whether they had forgotten to take something with them, such as keys, direct i o n s , or an umbrella. F i n a l l y , Section 4 asked participants whether they had forgotten to t e l l someone something, and included items such as relaying a telephone message or t e l l i n g someone about a s o c i a l event. Participants were encouraged to add items within each of these sections. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had forgotten each item within the previous week and, i f so, how frequently. Frequency was assessed using a five-point scale that ranged from 1 to 2 times to more than 10 times. 95 Participants also rated the importance of each forgotten item using a four-point scale that ranged from not at a l l  important to very important. In the f i f t h section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to l i s t anything else they had forgotten during the preceding week that they f e l t did not f a l l into one of the previous sections. In the sixth section, participants were asked about the type of internal and external memory aids they normally used, and whether they had used any type of memory aid to remember things they had previously forgotten. In the l a s t section, participants were asked to indicate t h e i r age and gender. Procedure Participants were given the questionnaire during one class, asked to complete i t on th e i r own time, and return i t at the next class. For most students, t h i s was two days l a t e r , although for some, i t was four days. The respondents were to l d that t h i s was a study on prospective memory. It was stressed that they were to use the past week as a time frame for responding to the questionnaire items. They were also encouraged to add any items they had forgotten but which were not included on the questionnaire, and they were reminded to provide frequency and importance information for these items. Predictions Based on the results obtained in Study 1, f i v e predictions were made. F i r s t , i t was hypothesized that more items would be forgotten i n the second category ( i . e . things one intended or planned to do) than i n any of the other categories. Second, i t was expected that any p a r t i c u l a r item would not be forgotten more than once or twice during the week; i t was assumed that i f an item was "forgotten" more than a few times during the week, the participant may be procrastinating rather than forgetting. Third, i t was hypothesized that forgotten items would generally be rated as unimportant (cf. Meacham & Kushner, 1980). In Study 1, most of the forgotten intentions were rated as being s l i g h t l y to moderately important, but t h i s could have p a r t i a l l y been due to the small number of data points ( i . e . 56). In Study 2, the number of potential memory f a i l u r e s was at least 2552 (29 items X 88 participants, see below). If the results obtained i n the f i r s t study were simply a consequence of a small number of instances, similar results should not be obtained. Fourth, i t was hypothesized that females would report using more memory aids than males. F i n a l l y , i t was expected that external memory aids would be used more than int e r n a l ones (see also Harris, 1978; 1980). Results 97 The r e s u l t s from each of the f i r s t f i v e sections w i l l be considered i n d e t a i l f i r s t . An assessment of the types of memory aids the students used and the effectiveness of these aids w i l l then be presented. Number of memory f a i l u r e s A t o t a l of 885 memory f a i l u r e s were reported; 799 of these were responses to the s p e c i f i c questionnaire items. The additional 86 items (15 of which were included i n Section 5) were added by 43 participants. Fourteen of these items were l i s t e d as an addition in one section but appeared elsewhere on the questionnaire. The other 72 items were categorized by two independent judges. Amount of agreement between the judges was 91.7%, kappa = .89 (Cohen, 1960). Items that were c l a s s i f i e d as belonging to one section by both judges (or where the judges disagreed, by one of the judges and a t h i r d individual) were added to that section. Seventy-seven of the additions (including the 14 that appeared elsewhere on the questionnaire) could be c l a s s i f i e d into one of the f i r s t four sections on the questionnaire. Nine additions seemed to be concerned primarily with f a i l i n g to remember s p e c i f i c information (e.g. where things were located). These items were not considered further. Separate analyses of the s p e c i f i c responses to the questionnaire items only (n = 799), and of these responses plus the additional items (n = 876), revealed s i m i l a r 98 patterns of r e s u l t s . Only the findings of the l a t t e r analysis are presented. Types of responses. A t o t a l of 123 (14.0%) memory fa i l u r e s occurred i n Section 1 ( a c t i v i t i e s one does on a regular basis); 423 (48.3%) occurred i n Section 2 ( a c t i v i t i e s one had planned or intended to do); 189 (21.6%) occurred i n Section 3 (something one had intended to take with them); and 141 (16.1%) occurred i n Section 4 (something one intended to t e l l someone). To determine i f these values were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , a chi-squared analysis was conducted, using the following procedure to calculate the expected frequencies for each section. The number of potential responses in each section was d i f f e r e n t (e.g. the potential number for Section 1 was 4 s p e c i f i c questionnaire items X 88 participants + 23 additions = 375 items; for Section 2 the potential number was 15 items X 88 participants + 25 additions = 1345 items). Therefore, for each section, the t o t a l number of potential responses on the questionnaire was divided by the number of potential responses for that section. This value was then multiplied by the t o t a l number of actual responses to obtain the expected frequency. Using t h i s procedure, the differences 2 were not s i g n i f i c a n t , x (3) = 5.80, p > .05. It was hypothesized, on the basis of findings reported in Study 1, that the number of items c l a s s i f i e d i n Section 2 would be proportionately greater than the number c l a s s i f i e d 99 i n the other three sections combined. A chi-squared analysis, conducted using the same procedures described above, indicated that the hypothesis was not supported. Instead, proportionately more items were c l a s s i f i e d i n Section 4 than i n Sections 1 , 2 , and 3 combined, x 2 ( l ) = 4.89, p_ < .05. Frequency data. Of the 876 memory f a i l u r e s reported, 644 (73.5%) occurred 1 to 2 times, 153 (17.5%) occurred 3 to 5 times, 28 (3.2%) occurred 6 to 8 times, 4 (0.5%) occurred 8 to 10 times, and 8 (0.9%) occurred more than 10 times. Frequency information was not provided for 39 (4.4%) of the items. More memory f a i l u r e s occurred once or twice than in the other four categories combined, x 2 ( l ) = 243.0, p_ < .001. Importance ratings. The mean importance ratings for items in each of the four sections were 2.51 (sd = 1.00, n = 116), 2.49 (sd = 1.10, n = 412), 2.67 (sd = 1.13, n = 187), and 2.20 (sd = 0.97, n = 137), respectively. With the exception of Section 4, these ratings correspond to s l i g h t l y to moderately important. The mean rating for items in Section 4 corresponds to s l i g h t l y important. Use of memory aids Based on the results obtained in Study 1, i t had been hypothesized that males would report using fewer memory aids than females. However, a l l of the females (n = 57) and 100 a l l but four of the males (n = 27, 87%) reported using some type of memory aid. I t was also hypothesized (again based on the findings in Study 1) that external aids would be used more than in t e r n a l aids. This was not observed. Seventy-two percent of the females and 59% of the males used both external and int e r n a l aids. Fourteen percent of the females and 2 6% of the males reported using external aids only; 14% of the females and 15% of the males reported using internal aids only. Overall, 72 students used external aids while 69 students used internal aids. Participants were asked to indicate how often they used various types of memory aids and, i n addition to the s p e c i f i c aids l i s t e d , they were encouraged to add any other ones they used on a regular basis. Thus, they could report using more than one type of mnemonic. With respect to the external aids, 3 5 individuals reported using appointment diaries,. 60 reported using written notes (including writing on one's hand, or on a calendar), and 29 reported asking others to remind them to do something. These differences were s i g n i f i c a n t , x^(2) = 13.08, p < .005. There was, however, no difference between males and females with respect to the types of external memory aids used. Additional aids included keeping or putting things i n a v i s i b l e or s p e c i f i c place, putting a f a m i l i a r object in an unusual location and keeping a journal 101 with entries of past events. Putting things where they would be noticed was reported by three participants; the other aids were only reported once. With respect to the internal memory aids, 40 participants used mental notes and 28 used rehearsal. This difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t , and, as with the use of external aids, males and females did not d i f f e r in t h e i r use of these mnemonics. Additional internal memory aids included t r y i n g to make a (funny) mental picture of the information, putting the information to a musical tune or beat, measuring the importance of the information, and remembering the number of items to do each day then adjusting the number with the execution of each task. Using pictures was reported twice; the rest were reported only once. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , external memory aids were more e f f e c t i v e than internal ones. Thirty-eight students (45%) indicated they had forgotten at least one item that they had t r i e d to remember using some type of memory aid. Two-thirds of these participants . forgot items when only an internal memory aid had been used; eight percent forgot items when both external and internal aids were used. Discussion The purpose of t h i s study was twofold. F i r s t , Study 1 was replicated using a questionnaire rather than a memory 102 diary. Second, s p e c i f i c rather than general questions were asked i n an e f f o r t to determine whether some memory f a i l u r e s would be reported with one type of measure but not with the other. Based on the re s u l t s obtained i n Study 1, f i v e hypotheses were developed, but only one was supported. S p e c i f i c a l l y , most memory f a i l u r e s occurred only once or twice during the week under investigation. In contrast to the results obtained in the f i r s t study, participants in Study 2 reported forgetting to relay information more frequently than they indicated they had forgotten items in any of the other three categories. These results may have been due to the d i f f e r e n t groups of participants in the two studies (graduate vs. undergraduate students) and/or to the types of questions used ( i . e . s p e c i f i c rather than general). The use of s p e c i f i c questions in t h i s study may have reminded participants of intentions they may not have remembered on t h e i r own. In spite of these differences, however, the four-category scheme developed i n Study 1 again accounted for most of the memory f a i l u r e s reported in the second study; out of 885 memory f a i l u r e s , only nine, items could not be c l a s s i f i e d using t h i s system. These items were concerned with forgetting information rather than forgetting intentions. As was the case i n Study 1, most of the memory f a i l u r e s reported were rated as being s l i g h t l y to moderately 103 important. Therefore, i t seems that people may forget intentions, not because they are perceived as being unimportant, but because they are not considered p a r t i c u l a r l y important. In other words, memory f a i l u r e s may be remembered simply because the intended a c t i v i t i e s have some, a l b e i t perhaps l i t t l e , importance attached to them. Intentions that are perceived as unimportant may never be remembered, but a c t i v i t i e s that are perceived as being very important may rarely be forgotten (and thus would not be not reported in studies that emphasize memory f a i l u r e s ) . The fourth hypothesis was based on an unexpected finding observed in Study 1, namely, that females reported using more memory aids than males. The lack of support for t h i s hypothesis in Study 2 suggests that t h i s may have been a spurious r e s u l t . The fact that the f i f t h hypothesis was not supported i s somewhat puzzling. Based both on Study 1 and findings reported by Harris (1978, 1980; see also Kreutzer et a l . , 1975), i t was expected that participants would report using external memory aids more than internal ones. This was not observed; both types of aids were used equally often. Nevertheless, external memory aids, either alone or in combination with internal memory aids, produced fewer memory f a i l u r e s than using internal memory aids only, thus supporting Harris' (1978, 1980) conclusion that .people use external aids because they are e f f e c t i v e . 104 While Studies 1 and 2 were concerned with the types of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience, Study 3 examined people's perceptions of t h e i r memories, including t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform prospective memory tasks. 105 STUDY 3 Study 3 involved the development of a s e l f - r e p o r t questionnaire that examined people's b e l i e f s about, and attitudes towards, t h e i r memory a b i l i t i e s . Unlike many exi s t i n g metamemory questionnaires, t h i s measure e x p l i c i t l y distinguished between everyday and prospective memory a b i l i t i e s . The purpose of the study was twofold: to determine the structure and r e l i a b i l i t y of the questionnaire, and to determine whether p a r t i c i p a n t s ' responses varied as a function of age. Method Participants A t o t a l of 376 individuals (128 males, 248 females) participated in t h i s study. They were recruited through seniors' groups, community recreational f a c i l i t i e s , advertisements placed in l o c a l newspapers, and radio and newspaper interviews. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 88 years (mean age 48.5 years). Educational l e v e l varied from grade school to Ph.D., with a mean of 14.6 years (range 6 to 22 years). Occupations also varied, and The sample included 62 individuals who participated in Study 4 and 134 who served i n Study 5. These individuals were included here for. two reasons. F i r s t , a l l of the participants had been treated in a similar manner to the point where the questionnaire was completed (e.g. they were recruited in the same way, asked to f i l l out a background information form that requested demographic information and asked to f i l l out the metamemory questionnaire). Second, since one of the main goals of t h i s study was to examine the r e l i a b i l i t y of the questionnaire, i t was f e l t that a reasonably large sample would provide more stable r e s u l t s than a smaller sample. 106 included homemakers, tradespeople, o f f i c e workers, sales personnel, and professionals. Socioeconomic status was estimated using the Hodge-Siegel-Rossi Occupational Prestige Equivalents (Davis & Smith, 1985). Ninety-four percent of the volunteers rated t h e i r health as average or better, 90% rated t h e i r eyesight as average or better and 85% rated t h e i r hearing as average or better. Age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to educational l e v e l , r(373) = -. 11, p < .02; to socioeconomic status, r(370) = -.21, p_ < .001; and to se l f - r e p o r t ratings of health, r(374) = .09, p. < .05.7 Nevertheless, since none of the correlations account for more than f i v e percent of the variance, they w i l l not considered further. As might be expected, s e l f - r e p o r t ratings of health were correlated with ratings of eyesight, r(374) = .59, p_ < .001 and hearing, r(374) = .64, p_ < .001. Sel f - r a t i n g s of eyesight and hearing were also related, r(374) = .60, P < .001. An additional 56 individuals f a i l e d to return the materials. Materials and Procedure. Each participant was given a small packet of papers to complete. Each packet contained a consent form, a 7 In t h i s , and the following studies, data were not availa b l e for a l l participants on a l l measures. The various a n a l y t i c procedures were conducted using the maximum amount of data available. 107 part i c i p a n t information form, a set of instructions, and an eight-page questionnaire. The participant information form requested demographic data such as age, gender, number of years of education, and occupation (or previous occupation, i f r e t i r e d ) . Participants were also asked to rate t h e i r general health, eyesight, and hearing (cf. Dixon & Hultsch, 1983b). These ratings were done using f i v e point scales that ranged from very good to very poor. The instructions described the format of the questionnaire items and stressed three points: (a) that there were no right or wrong answers to any of the items on the questionnaire; (b) that participants were to respond to every item, even i f i t did not seem to apply to them; and (c) that participants were to respond with the choice that best applied to them. The eight-page questionnaire contained items r e l a t i n g to how people perceive t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s , and what, i f anything, they do to improve t h e i r memory. It also contained a number of items s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with prospective memory. Many of the general memory items were adapted from Dixon and Hultsch's (1983a, 1983b) Metamemory • • • 8 in Adulthood Questionnaire. Others were adapted from Q Questions from four of the eight subscales on the Metamemory i n Adulthood Questionnaire were adapted for use in t h i s study. The four subscales were Capacity, Change, Strategy, and Achievement. Items on these subscales appeared to have greater relevance for performance on 108 Perlmutter's (1978) Memory Questionnaire. A number of the items on prospective memory were adapted from Herrmann and Neisser's (1978) Inventory of Everyday Memory Experiences. Several additional items were generated by the author. The questionnaire o r i g i n a l l y contained 122 items. As i t was to be only one of several measures used i n the following studies, the questionnaire was shortened to 50 items, using procedures described in Appendix C. Each item, presented in statement form, was followed by five choices ranging from agree strongly to disagree strongly. The questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes to complete. The 50 item metamemory questionnaire (the Memory Questionnaire) was used to assess f i v e aspects of memory: perceptions of one's own memory a b i l i t i e s in general; perceptions of one's a b i l i t y to perform prospective memory tasks; awareness of changes in memory over time; feelings about, or attitudes towards, having a good memory; and use of strategies to improve memory performance. To determine whether the questionnaire reflected these f i v e aspects, the structure and r e l i a b i l i t y of the questionnaire were assessed. Based on the assumption that the hypothesized structure of the questionnaire would be supported by the res u l t s prospective memory tasks than items on the other subscales (Task, A c t i v i t y , Anxiety, and Locus). The author i s grateful to Dr. David Hultsch for supplying materials on the Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire. 109 (primarily because the questionnaire was very similar to the Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire), several predictions concerning age-related performance were made. F i r s t , i n l i n e with objective measures of prospective memory performance, age differences were not expected for the scale assessing perceptions of prospective memory a b i l i t i e s (e.g. Moscovitch & Minde, cited by Moscovitch, 1982; Sinnott, 1986a; West, 1984). Second, consistent with r e s u l t s reported by Dixon and Hultsch (1983b), age differences were not expected for the scales assessing the use of memory strategies or attitudes about having a good memory, although age differences were expected for the scales assessing perceptions both of one's own memory a b i l i t i e s and of change in memory a b i l i t i e s over time. Third, i t was predicted that, on these l a t t e r scales, young participants would score higher than old participants. Fourth, i t was also expected that o v e r a l l , young participants would score higher than eith e r middle age or old participants, although no prediction was made regarding whether the l a t t e r two groups would d i f f e r from each other (see Dixon & Hultsch, 1983b). Results Structure and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Memory Questionnaire The questionnaire data were subjected to a series of factor analyses. A five factor solution was chosen from a preliminary analysis based on both a scree test and th e o r e t i c a l considerations. Common factors were then 110 obtained by the unweighted least squares method and transformed to simple structure by a Harris-Kaiser oblique rotation. Using a selection c r i t e r i o n of .30 or greater, 41 of the o r i g i n a l 50 items loaded on the f i v e factors. Five items were dropped from subsequent analyses: three because they loaded equally on two factors; one because i t loaded on two factors, neither of which were the expected factor; and one because i t loaded on an unexpected factor and i t did not seem to f i t with the other items on that factor. Four additional items did not load on any of the factors. Nevertheless, i t was necessary to include them in order to obtain a clean solution. The f i v e factors were interpreted and labeled in terms of t h e i r item content (cf. Dixon & Hultsch, 1983b). They are: Factor 1. Prospective memory. This factor contained seven items related to the a b i l i t y to remember to perform a c t i v i t i e s sometime in the future. Examples included: I often forget to pass on messages; I ra r e l y forget to keep an appointment; I often forget to make important phone c a l l s . Factor 2. Achievement and motivation. Factor 2 contained nine items related to the importance people attach to having a good memory and to how much e f f o r t they expend in remembering information. Examples included: It i s important to me to have a good memory; A good memory i s I l l something of which to be proud; I admire people who have good memories. Factor 3. Change over time. This factor contained seven items concerned with people's perceptions of how t h e i r memories had, or were expected to, change over time. Examples included: I think I w i l l forget things more e a s i l y as I get older; My memory w i l l get better as I get older; My memory has greatly improved i n the l a s t 10 years. Factor 4. Evaluation of one's own memory. This factor contained 12 items concerned with people's awareness of t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s (both good and bad) i n various situations. Examples included: I often forget facts; I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering t r i v i a ; I am good at remembering names. Factor 5. Use of strategies. Factor 5 contained six items concerned with the use of various types of memory strategies. Examples included: I often use mental images or pictures in tr y i n g to remember something; I consciously attempt to reconstruct the day's events in order to remember something; I often t r y to remember something by remembering some information about i t . Based on the f a c t o r i a l r e s u l t s , f i v e scales were constructed by summing the scores over the defining items. The scales were given the same labels as the corresponding factors. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the scales was assessed in two ways. The internal consistency of each scale was assessed using 112 Cronbach's alpha c o e f f i c i e n t (Cronbach, 1951). Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y was assessed using a subsample of 62 participants (from Study 4) who were administered the questionnaire a second time, approximately f i v e weeks a f t e r the f i r s t administration. Results of the r e l i a b i l i t y assessment are presented i n Table 2. Examination of the table indicates that the scales have acceptable r e l i a b i l i t y l e v e l s , with the alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from .70 to .85 and the test-retest correlations ranging from .73 to .85. These res u l t s are comparable to those reported by Dixon and Hultsch (unpublished manuscript, no date). Intercorrelations among the f i v e scale scores are presented in Table 3. As one might expect, Evaluation of one's own memory was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to Prospective memory, r(374) = .41, p_ < .001. Further, Evaluation of one's own memory and Prospective memory were related to Change over time, r(374) = .40, p_ < .001, and r(374) = . 19, p_ < .001, respectively. Again, these results were not unexpected, given that individuals who are aware of t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember pa r t i c u l a r types of information are also l i k e l y to be aware of any changes in t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember t h i s information as they grow older. Use of strategies was related to Achievement and motivation, r(374) = .47, p_ < .001, indicating that those individuals who f e e l that having a good memory i s important and who are 113 Table 2 R e l i a b i l i t y of the five scales on the Memory Questionnaire Scale Number Coef f i c i e n t Test-retest name of items alpha r e l i a b i l i t y (N=376) (N=62)a Prospective 7 .70 .73 memory Achievement 9 . 79 .76 and motivation Change over 7 .85 .85 time Evaluation of 12 .70 . 84 one's own memory Use of 6 .70 .75 strategies Note. a T n e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s are based on a subsample of 62 individuals from Study 4. The te s t - r e t e s t i n t e r v a l was approximately f i v e weeks. 114 Table 3 Intercorrelations among the fi v e scales on the Memory  Questionnaire Scale Scale 1 2 3 4 5 1- Prospective memory 2- Achievement and motivation 3- Change over time 4- Evaluation of one's own memory 5- Use of strategies Note: * p_ < . 001. -.04 .19* -.05 .41* -.01 .40* -.03 .47* .01 .02 115 w i l l i n g to work at remembering information are also those who are l i k e l y to use a variety of memory strategies. Performance as a function of age To determine whether responses to the various questionnaire scales d i f f e r e d as a function of age, Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between age and scores on each of the scales. Age was negatively correlated with Evaluation of one's own memory, r(374) = -.14, p_ < .003, suggesting that older individuals f e e l less p o s i t i v e about t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember in general than younger ind i v i d u a l s . Age was also negatively correlated to with Change over time, r(374) = -.25, p < .001, suggesting that older participants think t h e i r memory has or w i l l change more with age than younger participants. Age and t o t a l score (based on the sum of the scores for the fi v e scales) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related as well, r(374) = -.14, p < .003. Similar findings have been reported by Dixon and Hultsch (1983b). To further examine the influence of age on performance, the sample was divided into f i v e age groups based on suggestions in the li f e - s p a n l i t e r a t u r e (e.g. Bromley, 1974; Lidz, 1980; Rogers, 1982; Schaie & W i l l i s , 1986). These groups were: young (18 to 30 years of age, n = 81), young-middle age (31 to 40 years of age, n = 71) , middle age (41 to 55 years of age, n = 73), old-middle age (56 to 65 years of age, n = 65) and old (66 years of age and older, n = 86). 116 Means and standard deviations for scores on the questionnaire for each age group are presented in Table 4. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using age group as the independent variable, and scores on the f i v e questionnaire scales as the dependent measures. The results of the l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o t e s t were s i g n i f i c a n t , Wilks Lambda = .87, F (20, 1218) = 2.63, P < .001. Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed s i g n i f i c a n t age e f f e c t s for two of the scales, Evaluation of one's own memory and Change over time. For the scale assessing perceptions of one's own memory a b i l i t i e s in general, F(4, 371) = 3.81, p < .005; for that assessing awareness of change, F(4, 371) = 8.50, p_ < .001. Follow-up pairwise comparisons were calculated for both scales using the Spjotvoll-Stoline procedure. 9 Young-middle age respondents (31 to 40 year olds) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than old-middle age respondents (56 to 65 year olds) on Evaluation of one's own memory. None of the other comparisons for t h i s scale were s i g n i f i c a n t . For the scale assessing change over time, respondents between 18 and 40 years of age scored higher than those over 40. That i s , The Spjotvoll-Stoline procedure for pairwise comparisons i s a modification of Tukey's Honestly S i g n i f i c a n t Difference test for unequal n's. As with Tukey's test, the procedure assumes equal variances. A description of the procedure can be found in Kirk (1982, pp. 118-119). 117 Table 4 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for scores on  the Memory Questionnaire for each age group Scale Y Y Age -ma Group Ma 0 -ma 0 a Prospective 26 .35 27 .55 26 .90 27 .33 26 .47 memory (5. 10) (4. 76) (4. 79) (4. 68) (4. 36) Achievement 36 .79 35 .75 36 . 58 36 .92 36 .92 and motivation (4. 68) (5. 52) (5. 43) (6. 16) (4. 70) Change over 19 .49 19 . 11 16 .41 16 . 49 15 .91 time (5. 44) (5-73) (4- 97) (4. 74) (4. 46) Evaluation of 37 . 00 38 .01 35 .45 33 .92 35 .43 one's own (6. 18) (7. 82) (6. 66) (7. 04) (6. 24) memory Use of 22 . 05 20 .79 21 .07 21 . 19 21 .69 strategies (4. 31) (3. 80) (4. 70) (5. 01) (4. 31) Total 141 . 68 141 .21 136 .41 135 .86 136 .41 (15. 65) (16. 24) (12. 190 (17. 50) (13 . 02) Note: a Y = young (18 to 30 years of age) ; Y-ma = young — middle age (31 to 40 years of age); Ma = middle age (41 to 55 years of age); O-ma = old-middle age (56 to 65 years of age); 0 = old (66 years of age and older). *"* Total possible scores for each of the scales are: Prospective memory = 35; 118 Achievement and motivation = 45; Change over time = 35; Evaluation of one's own memory = 60; Use of strategies = 30; and Total = 205. 119 both the young and the young-middle age groups scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the middle age, the old-middle age and the old groups. Scores for the two youngest groups did not d i f f e r . These results support those based on the c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. A one-way ANOVA on t o t a l score for the metamemory questionnaire was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4, 371) = 2.78, p_ < .03, although none of the follow-up pairwise comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . A complex contrast (using Scheffe's test) comparing the two youngest groups with the three oldest groups ( i . e . 18 to 40 years olds vs. 40+) was s i g n i f i c a n t , although several additional complex contrasts involving a l l f i v e age groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, the hypothesis that, o v e r a l l , young participants would score higher than both the middle age and the old participants was minimally supported. Discussion As noted, Study 3 was conducted for two reasons. The f i r s t was to determine the structure and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Memory Questionnaire; the second was to determine whether responses to the questionnaire items varied as a function of age. Because the Memory Questionnaire was very s i m i l a r to Dixon and Hultsch's (1983a, 1983b) Metamemory in Adulthood Questionnaire, i t was expected that the structure and r e l i a b i l i t y of the measure would be reasonably good. The data confirmed t h i s . Although the r e l i a b i l i t y of the Memory 120 Questionnaire was not as high as that reported for the Metamemory i n Adulthood Questionnaire (Dixon & Hultsch, unpublished manuscript, no date), i t was higher than that reported for several other metamemory questionnaires (see Herrmann, 1982, 1984). As expected, young participants scored higher than old participants on the scales assessing perceptions of one's own memory a b i l i t i e s and awareness of change over time. These results also support Dixon and Hultsch's (1983b) findings. The prediction that younger participants would have a higher t o t a l score than older participants was minimally supported. Taken together, these findings indicate that the Memory Questionnaire i s both r e l i a b l e and sensi t i v e to age differences. The results, however, should be interpreted with caution, since there appear to be a number of problems with the format of the questionnaire. For example, many of the items included the words "often" or "rarely". This created interpretation d i f f i c u l t i e s for several participants, although these d i f f i c u l t i e s did not appear to be age related. Participants also commented on the d i f f i c u l t y associated with responding to items containing more than one idea (e.g Having a good memory would be nice, but i t i s not important), since they may have agreed with only part of the statement. The use of a response scale based on extent of agreement created problems as well, p a r t i c u l a r l y when participants agreed with the g i s t of a statement, but not 121 with the item as i t was worded. A number of p a r t i c i p a n t s q u a l i f i e d t h e i r responses, for example, by noting that they never forgot appointments because they always wrote them down, or that they f e l t short-term, but not long-term memory, would decline with age. The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s did not appear to be s p e c i f i c to any p a r t i c u l a r items. For the most part, d i f f i c u l t i e s with the Memory Questionnaire were not encountered u n t i l much of the data had been collected ( i . e . in Study 5). The investigator, therefore, decided to continue using the questionnaire despite i t s problems, in order to have comparable data for a l l participants. In retrospect, the questionnaire should have contained more precise items and part i c i p a n t s should have been asked to indicate either the extent to which they agreed with p a r t i c u l a r statements, or the absolute frequency with which they experienced various types of memory f a i l u r e s (cf. Dixon & Hultsch, 1983b, unpublished manuscript, no date; Harris, 1978, 1980). As noted in the Introduction, one of the major advantages of using se l f - r e p o r t measures, such as those developed in the f i r s t three studies, i s that they can provide valuable insights into the types of questions investigators should be addressing, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a new research area. Given the problems associated with s e l f -report measures, though, these studies are only a s t a r t i n g point. In order to adequately address a research question 122 such as whether prospective and retrospective memory d i f f e r , or whether prospective memory performance d i f f e r s across the adult l i f e span, one needs to compare responses on s e l f -report measures with performance on more objective measures (e.g. Dixon & Hultsch, 1983a; Hulicka, 1982; Z e l i n s k i et a l . , 1980). This was done i n Studies 4 and 5. 123 STUDY 4 The fourth study was conducted to determine how people l i v i n g i n the community fe e l about, and use, t h e i r memory on a d a i l y basis. This was assessed using s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures. Both retrospective and prospective memory were examined. Method Participants The participants were 62 community dwelling adults (15 males and 47 females) between 20 and 88 years of age (mean age 50.18 years). They were recruited through seniors' groups, recreational f a c i l i t i e s , advertisements in community newspapers, and radio interviews. Educational l e v e l ranged from 8 to 22 years, with a mean of 14.5 years. As i n Study 3, socioeconomic status was estimated using the Hodge-Siegel-Rossi Occupational Prestige Equivalents (Davis & Smith, 1985). Ninety-four percent of the participants rated t h e i r general health as average or better, 90% rated t h e i r eyesight as average or better and 82% rated t h e i r hearing as average or better. Age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to s e l f - r a t i n g s of health, r(60) = .27, p < .02, and eyesight, r(60) = .29, p < .01. Ratings of health and hearing were also related, r(60) = .21, p < .05, as were ratings of hearing and eyesight, r(60) = .33, p < .01. An additional 19 participants f a i l e d to complete the study. Individuals who did not complete the study did not 124 d i f f e r from those who did with respect to age, number of years of education, and socioeconomic l e v e l . Materials Both s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures were used in t h i s study. Self-report measures. The se l f - r e p o r t measures included a modified version of the memory diary developed in Study 1, a s l i g h t l y modified version of the memory questionnaire developed in Study 2, and the Memory Questionnaire developed in Study 3. The modified memory diary consisted of a set of instructions and 25 i d e n t i c a l information/diary sheets. It was explained that the diary was meant to serve as a record of the unique or unusual events that the participant had to do each day (cf. E l l i s , 1988). Participants were t o l d that, for the purposes of the study, a unique or unusual event was (a) something they did not do everyday, (b) something that they had planned to do in advance, and (c) something that had important consequences for them. They were asked to f i l l out one information sheet for each a c t i v i t y they had intended to do during the day, regardless of whether or not they remembered to do i t . If they did not have anything unusual to do on a p a r t i c u l a r day, they were asked to note t h i s . In addition to specifying the nature of the intended event, participants were asked to indicate (a) how often they performed the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y during the course of 125 a week, (b) how important i t was for them to perform i t , (c) how pleasant they found the a c t i v i t y (both of these l a t t e r items involved a rating on seven-point scales), and (d) whether they had remembered the a c t i v i t y i n time to do i t and, i f so, whether they had done i t . As well, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to c l a s s i f y the a c t i v i t y into one of fi v e categories as outlined in Study 1. If participants did not remember t h e i r intention i n time to do i t , they were also asked to indicate (a) when they remembered about the a c t i v i t y r e l a t i v e to when they should have done i t , (b) when during the day the event was remembered, (c) whether they had used any type of memory aid to remember the a c t i v i t y and, i f so, what i t was, (d) why they f e l t they had forgotten the a c t i v i t y , and (e) why they f e l t they had l a t e r remembered the a c t i v i t y . Participants were encouraged to add any additional comments they f e l t were necessary, regardless of whether or not the intention had been remembered. It was assumed that the diary entries would r e f l e c t , and be representative of, the types.of prospective memory tasks participants engaged in on a day-to-day basis. Diary instructions and an information sheet are presented in Appendix D. Like the memory diary, the memory questionnaire developed i n Study 2 was also modified for use in the fourth study (primarily to eliminate items that had been included s p e c i f i c a l l y for a student population). The revised 126 version, c a l l e d the Memory Failures Questionnaire (MFQ), i s presented in Appendix E. The MFQ consists of six sections, the f i r s t four of which were based on the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme used in Studies 1 and 2. Section 1 contained 6 items, Section 2 contained 17 items, and Sections 3 and 4 each contained 4 items. As was the case i n Study 2, participants were encouraged to add items to each of these four sections. For each item, participants were asked to indicate whether they had forgotten to perform the specified a c t i v i t y during the previous week and, i f so, how often they had forgotten i t , how important that a c t i v i t y was for them, and how pleasant they generally found t h i s type of a c t i v i t y . Frequency of forgetting was assessed using a f i v e point scale that ranged from 1 to 2 times to more than 10 times. Importance was rated using a four point scale that ranged from not at a l l important to very important. Pleasantness was rated using a seven point scale that ranged from very  pleasant to very unpleasant. In the f i f t h section of the MFQ, participants were asked to indicate whether they had forgotten anything else that had not been included in the previous sections. In the l a s t section, they were asked to indicate whether they had used any type of memory aid to remember something they had forgotten and, i f so, to indicate the mnemonic employed. The t h i r d s e l f - r e p o r t measure was the 50-item Memory Questionnaire (MQ) developed i n Study 3. 1 2 7 Behavioral measures. The behavioral measures involved returning materials, making phone c a l l s and completing tasks in a spec i f i e d manner. Participants were asked to return a t o t a l of seven sets of materials. Four of these were to be returned on pa r t i c u l a r days; the other three were to be returned by s p e c i f i c dates. They were also asked to make f i v e phone c a l l s , four on sp e c i f i e d days, and the f i f t h , at a par t i c u l a r point i n the study. Thus, eight tasks (returning four sets of materials and making four phone c a l l s ) were to be completed within a r e l a t i v e l y short time frame. Four tasks (returning three sets of materials and making one phone c a l l ) were to be completed within a longer time frame. In addition to returning materials and making phone c a l l s , p articipants were asked to provide s p e c i f i c information both i n the diarie s and in t h e i r phone messages. In the diary, they were to note the date and the day of the week they started i t . As well, they were to include the date and time for .each entry. For the f i r s t four phone c a l l s , participants were asked to leave a message, giving t h e i r name, the time of the c a l l , and the status of the diary (whether i t had been, or would be, sent; see below). Procedure This was a mail-based study. Participants were sent the materials, along with self-addressed stamped envelopes and covering l e t t e r s indicating when the materials should be 128 returned. The l e t t e r s also indicated that i f a participant chose to withdraw from the study, a l l materials should be returned. Individuals interested i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study were sent two copies of the consent form, and one copy of a background information form that requested demographic information such as age, gender, educational l e v e l , and occupation (or previous occupation, i f r e t i r e d ) . They were asked to sign one copy of the consent form and return i t , along with the completed information form, by a sp e c i f i e d date. The second copy of the consent form was for t h e i r personal records. If the materials were not received within one week of the spe c i f i e d date, participants were contacted by phone to see i f they were s t i l l interested in pa r t i c i p a t i n g and, i f so, they were reminded to return the materials. (This procedure was used whenever an item was not received by the expected time). Once the investigator had received the signed consent and the background information forms, participants were sent the Memory Questionnaire (MQ1) and asked to complete and return i t by a spec i f i e d date. Once the MQ1 was received by the investigator, participants were sent four copies of the memory diary along with instructions to keep each diary for one week only, to begin and return i t on sp e c i f i e d dates, and to make a c a l l regarding the diary on a p a r t i c u l a r day. Half of the 129 participants were asked to phone the day before the diary was sent, half were asked to phone the day a f t e r . For each c a l l , participants were asked to leave a message that included t h e i r name, the time of the c a l l , and an indicati o n of when the diary was, or would be, sent. After returning the fourth diary, participants were sent the Memory Failures Questionnaire (MFQ) and a second copy of the Memory Questionnaire (MQ2). The MFQ examined prospective memory f a i l u r e s for the previous week. The MQ2 assessed whether par t i c i p a n t s ' attitudes about t h e i r memories had changed as a consequence of having kept t h e i r d i a r i e s . They were asked to return both questionnaires by a speci f i e d date, and to phone on the day the questionnaires were mailed to arrange a mutually convenient time for a follow-up interview. Participants f a i l i n g to phone to arrange a time for the interview were contacted a week afte r they had returned the l a s t questionnaires. The semi-structured interview was conducted either over the phone or in person and took approximately f i f t e e n minutes to complete. It involved answering s p e c i f i c questions regarding the study, the use of memory aids, and the participant's motivational l e v e l (co-operation). Participants were also asked to provide s e l f - r a t i n g s of t h e i r memory, health, hearing and eyesight (see Appendix F). They were then debriefed and thanked for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 130 Summary and predictions In summary, participants were asked: to mail i n the consent and participant information forms, MQ1, four d i a r i e s , and the MFQ and MQ2; to make f i v e phone c a l l s , one each time a diary was mailed and one to arrange an appointment for the interview; to leave a phone message that included t h e i r name, the time of the c a l l , and information regarding when the diary had or would be sent; to write the day of the week and the date on the front of each diary; and to write the date and the time of each entry in the diary. Prospective memory was assessed by determining whether or not participants returned the materials and made the phone c a l l s at the specified times, and by examining whether they included the requested information in the d i a r i e s and phone messages. The diary entries and the MFQ were retrospective measures of prospective memory, since they were completed after the various a c t i v i t i e s had occurred. Retrospective memory was assessed using the follow-up interview. Several predictions were made. F i r s t , the diary was intended to assess memory for unique or unusual events. There was no theoretical reason to believe that memory for t h i s type of information would vary as a function of age, and anecdotal reports suggested that people of a l l ages use a number of strategies to ensure that such information i s not forgotten. Consequently, i t was expected that older 1 3 1 p a r t i c i p a n t s would report remembering approximately the same proportion of diary entries as younger participants. Second, a number of studies have suggested that older p a r t i c i p a n t s are more sensitive to (or may at least report more) memory f a i l u r e s for everyday types of a c t i v i t i e s than younger indivi d u a l s (e.g. Perlmutter, 1978; Z e l i n s k i , et a l . , 1980). It was, therefore, predicted that older p a r t i c i p a n t s would score higher ( i n d i c a t i v e of a greater number of memory failures) on the MFQ than younger in d i v i d u a l s . Third, because people's perceptions of t h e i r own memories may not always r e f l e c t t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember to perform various a c t i v i t i e s , and may be influenced by the number of memory fa i l u r e s they can remember, the Memory Questionnaire (MQ) was administered both at the beginning and at the end of the study. I t was expected that a f t e r observing the number of memory f a i l u r e s they actually experienced, as opposed to the number they thought they experienced, people's perceptions of t h e i r memory a b i l i t i e s might change. It was hypothesized that a l l individuals would show greater awareness of t h e i r memory, a b i l i t y (as measured by the MQ) after the study than before i t . Fourth, as indicated i n the Introduction, older p a r t i c i p a n t s generally perform as well as, or better than, younger pa r t i c i p a n t s on prospective memory tasks. It was, therefore, expected that regardless of age, participants 132 would remember to mail the materials and make the phone c a l l s . F i f t h , West (1984) looked, but found minimal support for, the hypothesis that while general performance on prospective memory tasks may not d i f f e r as a function of age older participants may be less l i k e l y than younger participants to remember the s p e c i f i c s of the tasks. This hypothesis was addressed again in the present study. Namely, i t was predicted that older participants would remember to perform the various tasks, but would forget to include the additional information as requested (e.g. dates, times). Sixth, i t was hypothesized that i f both the s e l f - r e p o r t and the behavioral measures were assessing prospective memory performance, they should be correlated. Seventh, because much of the l i t e r a t u r e on memory and aging indicates that memory performance on retrospective tasks declines with age, i t was hypothesized that performance on the follow-up interview would d i f f e r as a function of age, with younger participants performing better than older individuals. F i n a l l y , based on findings reported by K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987) and Meacham and Leiman (1982), i t was expected that performance on the. follow-up interview would not correlate with performance on the d i a r i e s , the MFQ, or the three behavioral measures of prospective memory. Scoring Self-report measures The se l f - r e p o r t measures included the memory diary, the MFQ, and the MQ (both MQ1 and M Q 2 ) . Memory diary. Participants were asked to complete a diary entry for each unusual or unique event they planned to do during the day, regardless of whether they remembered the a c t i v i t y i n time to do i t . They were also asked to provide reasonably detailed information about each entry. Consequently, the memory d i a r i e s contained a wealth of information, only some of which w i l l be considered here. The number of diary entries varied both within part i c i p a n t s across the four d i a r i e s , and between partic i p a n t s both within and across the four weeks. Therefore, the number of diary entries was examined. Because participants were asked to note remembered as well as forgotten intentions, the proportion of entries remembered was also assessed. (Proportion as opposed to absolute number was used, since the t o t a l number of entries could vary). Memory Failures Questionnaire. The MFQ was scored in terms of the t o t a l number of items forgotten (regardless of whether these were s p e c i f i c questionnaire items or items that the participant had added). Memory Questionnaire. As noted above, the MQ was administered twice, once at the beginning of the study, and 134 again af t e r participants had kept a memory diary for four weeks. For each administration, s i x scores were obtained. Five of these were scores on the f i v e scales; the s i x t h was the sum of these scores ( t o t a l score). Only those items relevant to each of the scales (see Study 3) were used i n cal c u l a t i n g these values. Behavioral measures The behavioral measures included returning materials, making phone c a l l s , and completing tasks as requested. Return materials. Participants were asked to return seven sets of materials. With the exception of returning the consent and background information forms, they were awarded one point for returning the materials within one week of the specified date and an additional point for returning the materials within one day (as determined by the postmark) of the specified date. The one day grace period allowed for the fact that mail pickup from most postal boxes t y p i c a l l y occurs once a day at most, usually in the la t e afternoon. When the postmark was absent or unclear, the data were treated as missing. Note that the date the materials were mailed could not be estimated based on the date the materials were received; materials that were postmarked were received from one day to two weeks af t e r the postmarked date. One point was awarded for the consent form, based on when i t was returned, since individuals who did not return t h e i r consent form were not included i n the 135 study. A t o t a l of 13 points could be awarded for returning the materials. Make phone c a l l s . Participants were asked to make a t o t a l of f i v e phone c a l l s ; four e i t h e r the day before or the day a f t e r mailing t h e i r d i a r i e s , and the f i f t h a f t e r mailing the l a s t two questionnaires. For each of the f i r s t four c a l l s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were awarded one point for remembering to make the c a l l (within two days of the s p e c i f i e d day) and a second point for making i t on the sp e c i f i e d day. For the f i f t h c a l l , one point was awarded for remembering to make the c a l l , and a second point was awarded for making the c a l l within two days of when the questionnaires were mailed. Thus, a t o t a l of 10 points could be awarded. Complete tasks as specified. Participants were asked to provide s p e c i f i c information both i n t h e i r d i a r i e s and in t h e i r phone messages. For each diary entry, one point was awarded for giving the date; a second point was awarded for giving the time. As noted, because the number of diary entries could vary both within and between participants, data analysis involved the proportion of entries that included the spe c i f i e d information. In addition, for each diary, one point was awarded f o r each of the following: s t a r t i n g the diary on the spec i f i e d date; giving the date; and giving the day of the week. A possible t o t a l of 12 points (3 points per diary X 4 weeks) could be awarded for t h i s task. F i n a l l y , every time participants c a l l e d 136 regarding the diary, they were asked to leave a short message that included t h e i r name, the time of the c a l l , and an i n d i c a t i o n of when the diary was, or would be, sent. One point was awarded for each part of the message ( i . e . name, time, status of the di a r y ) . Since the time of the c a l l was rarely given (see below), a t o t a l of eight points could be awarded for t h i s task. Follow-up interview The f i r s t part of the interview assessed retrospective memory for information regarding the study. One point was awarded for each piece of information requested (e.g. the investigator's name, the return address for the materials, when the d i a r i e s were started). A t o t a l of 28 points could be awarded. Results Co-operation Co-operation was assessed by asking p a r t i c i p a n t s to indicate, using a five-point rating scale, how often they did t h e i r best to complete the various tasks. The scale ranged from always to never. Sixty-one percent of the participants indicated they "always" did t h e i r best, 31% indicated they "often" completed the tasks as well as possible, and 8% indicated they."sometimes" did t h e i r best. These findings are sim i l a r to those reported by Meacham and Leiman (1982, Study 2). 137 The results from the various s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures w i l l be presented i n two phases: each of the measures w i l l be considered i n d i v i d u a l l y , then r e l a t i o n s among the various measures w i l l be presented. As was the case i n Study 3, when e f f e c t s due to age were examined, age was f i r s t treated as a continuous variable, and co r r e l a t i o n a l analyses were conducted. The sample was then divided into five age groups, corresponding to those used i n the previous study, and analyses of variance were c a r r i e d out. The number of participants was 7, 17, 10, 15, and 13, for the young, the young-middle age, the middle age, the old-middle age, and the old groups, respectively. Means and standard deviations for the memory diary, the MFQ, the behavioral measures, and the follow-up interview for each age group are presented i n Table 5. Self-report measures Memory diary. The number of diary entries ranged from 1 to 64 across participants across a l l four weeks. The mean number of entries reported (averaged over the four weeks) ranged from 5.5 to 60.0 with an o v e r a l l mean of 12.5 (sd = 9.2). A repeated measures ANOVA on the number of diary entries across the four weeks was not s i g n i f i c a n t , i ndicating that people were reporting approximately the same number of unique or unusual events each week. The average number of diary entries reported was used in subsequent analyses involving t h i s variable. 138 Table 5 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for scores on  the memory diary, the MFQ. the behavioral measures, and the follow-up interview for each age group Measure Age Group Y Y -m M 0 -m O a Avg. no. 12. 89 18 .48 10 . 14 9 .82 9 . 00 of entries (6.48) (14. 72) (5. 44) (2. 89) (3 .73) Avg. prop. • 87 .81 .76 . 94 .95 of entries (.07) (• 20) (. 26) (• 08) ( .11) remembered MFQ 10 .43 6 . 53 6 . 80 6. 67 8 . 77 (2. 82) (2. 98) (5 .51) (4. 51) (7. 11) Return 10 . 00 10 . 24 10 . 10 10 .33 10 .31 materials* 5 (1. 29) (2. 17) (2. 23) (2. 19) (1. 80) Make phone 5 . 00 5 .71 4 . 30 4 .85 3 .58 c a l l s (3. 03) (3. 43) (2. 75) (3. 44) (3. 23) Complete 11 . 67 14 . 54 13 .67 !2 .75 12 . 18 tasks as (6. 62) (3. 84) (4. 47) (5. 63) (4. 92) s p e c i f i e d Follow-up 17 . 14 15 . 00 12 .80 11 .20 11 . 54 interview (4. 98) (3. 87) (3. 43) (3. 99) (4. 14) Note: aY = young (18 to 30 years of age) ; Y-m = young-middle age (31 to 40 years of age); M = middle age (41 to 55 years of age); 0-m = old-middle age (56 to 65 years of age); 0 = old (66 years of age and older). b T o t a l possible scores are: for Return materials, 13; for Make phone c a l l s , 10; for Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d , 20; and for the Follow-up interview, 28. 140 The number of entries reported was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to age, r(56) = -.33, p. < .01, with older par t i c i p a n t s reporting fewer items than younger in d i v i d u a l s . A one-way ANOVA (using age groups as the independent variable and average number of entries reported as the dependent variable) was also s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4, 53) = 2.89, p < .03. Since Ba r t l e t t ' s t e s t for homogeneity of variance was s i g n i f i c a n t , and the sample sizes i n the various age groups were unequal, follow-up comparisons were conducted using Scheffe's (as opposed to the Spjotvoll-Stoline) procedure. None of the pairwise comparisons, nor several of the more meaningful complex comparisons, were s i g n i f i c a n t . The proportion of items remembered varied from 0.0 to 1.00 across a l l four weeks and across a l l participants. The mean proportion remembered, averaged across the four weeks, ranged from 0.26 to 1.00 (between p a r t i c i p a n t s ) . The average mean proportion was 0.87 (sd =0.17). A repeated measures ANOVA on the average proportion of entries remembered was not s i g n i f i c a n t , suggesting that the proportion of entries remembered was similar over the four weeks. Analyses involving the proportion of items remembered were conducted using the average over the four weeks. It had been expected that older participants would report remembering approximately the same number of diary entries as younger individuals. This was not observed. Age 141 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the proportion of diary entries remembered, r(55) = .30, p < .02 indicating that older participants remembered more than younger participants. A one-way ANOVA involving the f i v e age groups was also s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4,52) = 3.06, p_ < .03. Again, because of heterogeneity of variance, follow-up comparisons were computed using Scheffe's test. Once more, none of the pairwise comparisons, nor several of the meaningful complex comparisons, were s i g n i f i c a n t . Nevertheless, a contrast comparing the young-middle and middle age groups with the old-middle and old groups was s i g n i f i c a n t , with the older participants indicating they remembered more items than the younger individuals. Memory Failures Questionnaire. It had been hypothesized that older participants would report more memory f a i l u r e s on the MFQ than younger participants. This was not observed: age was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with scores on the MFQ. A one-way ANOVA using scores on the MFQ as the dependent variable and age group as the independent variable was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Memory Questionnaire. It was predicted that a l l parti c i p a n t s would be more aware of t h e i r memory a b i l i t i e s (as measured by the Memory Questionnaire) after the study than before i t . To test t h i s , a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were obtained, suggesting that people's perceptions of t h e i r memory 142 a b i l i t i e s did not change as a result of keeping the d i a r i e s and observing how many items they forgot during the course of a week. This conclusion was supported by a non-s i g n i f i c a n t correlated t - t e s t conducted on t o t a l scores for MQ1 and MQ2. The means and standard deviations for scores on each of the scales on the MQ for each age group are presented in Table 6. To examine possible effects of age on the MQ, two MANOVAs were conducted, one for each administration of the MQ. Age group was used as the independent variable and scores on the five scales were used as dependent variables. Two ANOVAs were also conducted on the t o t a l score for each administration. None of the analyses were s i g n i f i c a n t , suggesting that the scores on the Memory Questionnaire did not d i f f e r as a function of age. Behavioral measures Return materials. It was expected that regardless of age, a l l participants would remember to mail the various materials. This was obtained. That i s , returning the materials was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age. A one-way ANOVA involving the f i v e age groups was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Make phone c a l l s . An ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the number of phone c a l l s made regarding the diary varied as a function of when participants were asked to make them. The results were not s i g n i f i c a n t , indicating that the 143 Table 6 Means and standard deviations f i n parentheses) for scores on  the MO for each administration for each age group S c a l e 3 Age Group Y Y-m M O-m O b Prospective memory 1 25.43 27.65 24 . 60 28.33 27 . 08 (4.54) (5.12) (5.42) (4.58) (3.12) 2 25.86 26. 06 25.40 26.73 26 . 62 (2.73) (6.17) (4.43) (5.97) (3.97) Achievement and motivation 1 36.14 35.35 38 . 30 37.93 38 . 62 (3.76) (7.53) (5.81) (4.80) (4.99) 2 36.43 35.47 38.60 39.27 36.85 (2.37) (6.97) (4.22) (3.43) (5.71) Change over time 1 14 .57 17 . 47 14.50 16. 00 16. 39 (4.93) (4.61) (4.91) (5.25) (5.53) 2 16. 14 18.18 14 . 00 15. 60 16.15 (4.81) (5.29) (4.76) (5.25) (5.00) (con't) 144 Table 6 (con't) Scale Y Y Age Group -m M 0 -m 0 Evaluation of one's own memory 1 37 .29 36 . 18 33 .80 34 . 67 34 . 69 (5. 28) (6. 99) (10. 15) (7. 70) (7. 98) 2 37 .86 35 .47 3 4 . 00 33 .73 34 . 00 (7. 45) (6. 69) (8. 21) (7. 32) (7. 04) Use of strategies 1 20 .71 20 .35 21 .90 22 .47 22 .47 (4. 07) (4. 89) (6. 03) (4. 37) (4. 31) 2 19 .86 20 . 82 22 .70 23 . 00 23 .31 (4. 74) (5. 31) (5. 03) (3. 57) (4. 59) Total 1 134 . 14 137 .00 133 . 10 139 .40 138 . 38 (12. 02) (13 . 69) (13 . 38) (15. 89) (13. 32) 2 136 . 14 136 . 00 134 .70 138 . 33 136 .92 (13 . 26) (15. 15) (11. 07) (15. 72) (12. 09) Note: aThe f i r s t value refers to the average score for the f i r s t administration of the MQ ( i . e . MQ1); the second refers to the average score for the second administration ( i . e . MQ2). Total possible scores for each of the scales are: Prospective memory = 35; Achievement and motivation = 4 5; Change over time = 35; Evaluation of one's own memory = 60; Use of strategies = 30; and Total = 205. Y = young (18 to 3 0 years of age; Y-m = young-middle age (31 to 40 years of age); M = middle age (41 to 55 years of age); O-m = old-middle age (56 to 65 years of age); 0 = old (66 years of age and older). 146 same number of c a l l s were made regardless of whether participants had been asked to make them either before or af t e r the d i a r i e s were returned. It was predicted that regardless of age, a l l participants would remember to make a l l of the phone c a l l s . A c o r r e l a t i o n between age and remembering to make the f i v e phone c a l l s was marginally s i g n i f i c a n t , r(53) = -.22, P < .06. A one-way ANOVA involving the f i v e age groups was not s i g n i f i c a n t . A summary score, based on remembering to return the materials and make the phone c a l l s , was calculated and subjected to a co r r e l a t i o n a l analysis. The cor r e l a t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t , thus supporting the hypothesis that a l l participants would remember to perform these tasks regardless of age. A one-way ANOVA was also not s i g n i f i c a n t . It was noted e a r l i e r that some of the materials were to be returned on a p a r t i c u l a r day (the four d i a r i e s ) . Others were to be returned on, or by, a p a r t i c u l a r day (the consent form, the two MQs and the MFQ) . Similarly, some of the phone c a l l s were to be made on a p a r t i c u l a r day (those regarding the diary), while one was to be made at a pa r t i c u l a r point in the study (the c a l l regarding the interview). Thus, some of the tasks (those pertaining to the diaries) were to be conducted within a short period of time; others were to be conducted over a longer time period 147 (cf. E l l i s ' , 1988, d i s t i n c t i o n between steps and pulses). To determine whether performance on the tasks varied as a function of the length of time involved, a two-tailed correlated t - t e s t was performed. The r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t , t(54) = -9.49, p_ < .001, i n d i c a t i n g that participants were more l i k e l y to perform a task i f i t was to be done within a short period of time, as opposed to a longer time period. Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d . A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s entered the date for each entry on the f i r s t two d i a r i e s . For both the t h i r d and fourth d i a r i e s , a l l but one participant entered the dates for a l l entries. Most participants also remembered to enter the time for each entry in each of the d i a r i e s . For the f i r s t diary, a l l but nine participants (6.7%) remembered to include the time. For the second, t h i r d and fourth d i a r i e s , a l l but 12 p a r t i c i p a n t s (10%) included the time for each entry. Consequently, neither proportion of dates, nor proportion of times, w i l l be considered further. The high performance rate on these two tasks was most l i k e l y due to the fact that two blank l i n e s , l a b e l l e d "Date" and "Time", respectively, appeared at the top of each diary page. The manipulation would have been more e f f e c t i v e had participants simply been asked (e.g. in the instructions for the diary) to put the s p e c i f i e d information somewhere at the top of the page for each entry (cf. Dobbs & Rule, 1987). It 148 was, however, considered essential that date information be provided (e.g. in order to ensure that the d i a r i e s were being kept for the appropriate length of time) and, although information pertaining to when the entries were made w i l l not be considered further here, such information w i l l prove useful i n future examinations of the d i a r i e s . The number of points awarded for remembering to s t a r t a diary on the specified day, and for giving the s p e c i f i e d information ( i . e . date and day of the week), ranged from zero to three (three being the maximum possible score) across participants over the four weeks. The mean number of points awarded (averaged over the four weeks) was 2.4 (sd = 0.73). A repeated measures ANOVA on the average score over the four weeks was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(3,171) = 4.65, p < .004. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using Tukey's HSD t e s t indicated that performance was better at the beginning of the four week period than at the end. The r e l a t i o n between age and the average score over the four weeks was not s i g n i f i c a n t . A l l participants who c a l l e d regarding the diary, l e f t t h e i r name (or th e i r participant number), and most indicated when the diary was, or would be, sent. Only two participants remembered to specify the time (once). Consequently, th i s part of the task was dropped from further consideration. A c o r r e l a t i o n between age and remembering to provide the specified information in a phone message was 149 marginally s i g n i f i c a n t , r(53) = -.21, p < .07. A one-way ANOVA, which examined performance on t h i s task as a function of age group, was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Based on findings repeorted by West (1984) , i t was hypothesized that older participants would be less l i k e l y to include additional information i n the messages and d i a r i e s than younger participants. To t e s t t h i s , a summary score for completing the tasks as s p e c i f i e d was calculated, based both on the t o t a l number of points for s t a r t i n g the diary, and on the t o t a l for leaving the phone messages (the t o t a l possible score was 20). In accordance with the r e s u l t s for the individual tasks discussed above, the c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i s summary score and age was not s i g n i f i c a n t , indicating that both old and young participants were l i k e l y to complete the tasks as requested. A one-way ANOVA on t h i s summary score also f a i l e d to reveal s i g n i f i c a n t findings. Comparisons between the s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures  of prospective memory In order to make comparisons between the s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory, simple correlations were conducted. The results are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Note that i n these tables, a l l results that were s i g n i f i c a n t at the p < .05 l e v e l or less are indicated. However, given the large number of. correlations that were computed, some of these may be s i g n i f i c a n t by chance alone. In an e f f o r t to control familywise error rate (and to err on 150 the side of being too conservative, rather than too l i b e r a l ) , only those results that were s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .001 or less were considered to be r e l i a b l e , and thus are discussed i n the text. A l l other findings were ignored. It was hypothesized that i f the s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures were both assessing prospective memory, they should be highly correlated. The res u l t s are presented in Table 7. The table indicates that, i n general, the hypothesis was not supported. Nevertheless, a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was obtained between remembering to make phone c a l l s and the average number of diary entries reported. The two s e l f - r e p o r t measures ( i . e . the diary and the MFQ) were not correlated, although the behavioral measures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to each other. In order to determine whether scores on the metamemory questionnaire (averaged across the two administrations of the MQ) were related to scores on the diary, the MFQ, and the various behavioral measures, simple correlations were calculated. The results are presented in Table 8. The table indicates that, by and large, scores on the MQ are not related to performance on the other measures, thus supporting results obtained by Dobbs and Rule (1987). Nonetheless, one correlation stands out: Prospective memory i s negatively correlated with scores on the MFQ, suggesting that greater awareness of one's a b i l i t y to carry out prospective memory tasks produces fewer memory f a i l u r e s . Table 7 Correlations between the sel f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory Measure 1 2 Measure 3 4 5 6 1-Avg. no. of entries 2-Avg. prop. -.13 of entries remembered 3-MFQ -.03 -.13 4-Return . 08 . 07 -.18 materials 5-Make . 39 . 22 -.24* .59** phone c a l l s 6-Complete . 29 . 04 -.22 .55** .73** tasks as sp e c i f i e d Note: * p < .05. ** p < .001. The degrees of freedom vary from 48 to 60. Table 8 Correlations between scales on the MQ and the se l f - r e p o r t  and behavioral measures of prospective memory Scale Measure P A C E S ipcl Avg. no. -.06 -.28* . 02 -.03 -.06 -.16 of diary entries Avg. prop. .22 -.25* . 10 .31** -.08 . 16 of entries remembered MFQ * * * -. 39 .36** -.28* -.34** .33 -.17 Return . 02 -.08 -.13 -.16 -.09 -.20 materials Make phone . 07 -.14 .03 . 11 -.13 -.01 c a l l s Complete . 05 -.02 • 01 . 05 -.21 -.04 tasks as spe c i f i e d Note: aP = Prospective memory; A = Achievement and motivation; C = Change over time; E = Evaluation of one's own memory; S = Use of memory strategies; T = t o t a l score sum of P, A, C, E, and S). * E <-05. ** g <.01. *** g <.001. The degrees freedom vary from 49 to 60. Follow-up interview It had been hypothesized that performance on the interview would d i f f e r as a function of age, with younger participants remembering more than older participants. This was observed: age was negatively related to scores on the interview, r(60) = -.47, p_ < .001. A one-way ANOVA using age group as the independent variable confirmed these results, F(4,57) = 4.04, p < .006. Follow-up comparisons using Scheffe's test were calculated, with only one pairwise comparison showing significance. Namely, participants 18 to 30 years of age scored higher than those 56 to 65 years of age. In addition, a complex comparison was s i g n i f i c a n t : participants between 18 and 55 years of age scored higher than those 56 and older. Several additional complex contrasts revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . Performance on the interview was not expected to be related to any of the prospective memory measures ( i . e . the diary, the MFQ, and the behavioral measures). Although scores on the interview were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the number of diary entries, r(56) = .48, p < .001, they were not related to the proportion of entries remembered. Moreover, no s i g n i f i c a n t correlation was observed between scores on the interview and scores on the MFQ. However, a l l three behavioral measures were correlated with the interview: for returning materials, r(60) = .29, p < .02; 155 for making phone c a l l s , r(53) = .58, p < .001; and for completing tasks as specified, r(49) = .35, g < .006. Discussion The fourth study was conducted i n order to examine how people l i v i n g i n the community use t h e i r memory on a d a i l y basis. Prospective memory was assessed using both s e l f -report and behavioral measures. Self-r e p o r t measures involved keeping a d a i l y diary for four weeks and completing a memory questionnaire that assessed memory f a i l u r e s for everyday a c t i v i t i e s with respect to the previous week. Retrospective memory was assessed by asking participants s p e c i f i c questions regarding the study. Prospective memory Since the purpose of the diary was to assess memory for events that were unique, unusual, or out of the ordinary, i t was expected that, regardless of age, p a r t i c i p a n t s would report remembering approximately the same number of items in t h e i r d i a r i e s . Although both a c o r r e l a t i o n and an ANOVA were s i g n i f i c a n t , only one of the meaningful follow-up comparisons was s i g n i f i c a n t . Namely, young-middle age and middle age participants remembered proportionally less than old participants. This result supports findings reported by Moscovitch and Minde (cited by Moscovitch, 1982). It i s possible that the older participants could have had fewer items to remember than younger pa r t i c i p a n t s , and that because of t h i s , they could remember the same proportion of 156 unusual or unique events as the younger individuals. This seems unl i k e l y , however, because although the number of diary entries reported appeared to be related to age, follow-up comparisons revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the f i v e age groups. These r e s u l t s were explored further i n Study 5. It was expected that older participants may be more sensitive to forgetting day-to-day a c t i v i t i e s , such as taking medication, turning o f f appliances, mailing l e t t e r s and passing along messages than younger participants, even though they may be as l i k e l y as younger participants to remember unusual events. Memory f a i l u r e s for d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s were assessed using the MFQ. The hypothesis was not supported, suggesting that everyone forgets routine tasks, and that s e n s i t i v i t y to these memory f a i l u r e s does not vary as a function of age. These results o f f e r support for Chaffin and Herrmann's (1983) conclusion that young and old p a r t i c i p a n t s do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r perceptions about t h e i r own memories. The r e s u l t s from the MQ suggest a s i m i l a r interpretation. It had been expected that p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions of t h e i r memories may change a f t e r keeping the diary for four weeks and observing how many intentions were forgotten. However, the data from the present study suggest that people's perceptions are reasonably stable. 157 People's b e l i e f s about t h e i r memory may not always correspond to how they expect to perform in a variety of situations. At the end of the study, several participants indicated that they f e l t better about t h e i r memories (presumably r e l a t i v e to the beginning of the study) because they did not forget as much as they thought they did. I t i s possible, however, that these individuals may have been very aware that they were p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a memory study and may, therefore, have made a greater (although perhaps unconscious) e f f o r t to remember things. If t h i s were the case, i t would account for the lack of age differences observed on the behavioral measures of prospective memory. It was expected that a l l participants would remember to mail the materials and make the phone c a l l s . I t was also expected that older participants would be less l i k e l y than t h e i r younger counterparts to carry out the tasks as specified. No age differences were observed either for performing the tasks or completing the tasks as specified, thus confirming findings reported by West (1984; 1988). It was hypothesized that the various measures of prospective memory would be highly correlated. This was not observed. One might argue that because the diary and the MFQ were retrospective measures of prospective memory, they may not correlate with the behavioral measures (cf. Kv a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982). If t h i s were the case, though, the two self-report measures should be 158 correlated with each other and with scores on the interview. Neither r e s u l t was obtained. Further, the MFQ was correlated with the perceived a b i l i t y to carry out prospective memory tasks as measured by the MQ, suggesting that i n contrast to the above explanation, the MFQ i s measuring prospective memory to some extent. The three behavioral measures of prospective memory ( i . e . returning materials, making phone c a l l s , and completing tasks as specified) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related, as one would expect i f they were a l l measures of prospective memory. In accordance with Dobbs and Rule's (1987) findings, no correlations were observed between scores on the metamemory questionnaire and the behavioral measures. Retrospective memory Retrospective memory was assessed using a semi-structured interview administered at the end of the study. As predicted, younger participants scored higher on t h i s measure than older participants. These results support the findings of several studies of retrospective memory involving various laboratory tasks (for a review, see Kausler, 1985). It was hypothesized that i f prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes, scores on the various prospective memory measures should not be correlated with scores on the interview (a measure of retrospective memory). Although the self-report measures 159 supported the hypothesis, the behavioral measures did not. It could be argued, though, that the follow-up interview i s not a p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive t e s t of retrospective memory because i t i s not clear that participants actually learned the information assessed by t h i s measure. For example, several participants indicated that since they did not have to write the address on the return envelopes, they had no (conscious) knowledge of what the address was. Had a better measure of retrospective memory been used, a more consistent pattern of res u l t s may have been obtained. The f i f t h study was designed to address th i s issue i n greater d e t a i l . 160 STUDY 5 The f i f t h study examined the r e l a t i o n between performance on prospective and retrospective memory tasks. As was the case i n Study 4 , both s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures were used to assess prospective memory. Retrospective memory was assessed using a number of standard laboratory tasks and the semi-structured interview. Method Participants The participants were 134 individuals (44 males and 90 females) between 19 and 84 years of age (mean age 49.02 years) who were recruited through community centers, senior's groups, radio interviews, and advertisements placed in community newspapers. None had served in the previous study. They had between 6 and 22 years of education (mean 15.28 years). Socioeconomic l e v e l was estimated using the Hodge-Siegel-Rossi Occupational Prestige Equivalents (Davis & Smith, 1985). In general, participants considered themselves to be very healthy: 91% rated t h e i r health and eyesight as average or above, 81% rated t h e i r hearing as average or above. Age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with educational l e v e l , r(132) = .16, p < .03, but since i t accounted for less than three percent of the variance, i t w i l l not be considered further. Age was also s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with s e l f - r e p o r t ratings of general health, r(132) = .30, p 161 < .001, and eyesight, r(132) = -.17, p_ < .05. F i n a l l y , s e l f - r a t i n g s of eyesight and hearing were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related, r(132) = .29, p < .001. Seven additional participants withdrew from the study. These individuals did not d i f f e r from those who completed the study with respect to age, number of years of education or socioeconomic l e v e l . Materials Memory performance was assessed using self-report, behavioral, and laboratory measures. Self-report measures. The three s e l f - r e p o r t measures used in the previous study were also used in Study 5 ( i . e . a diary of unique or unusual events, the Memory Questionnaire, and the Memory Failures Questionnaire). Behavioral measures. As was the case i n Study 4, participants were asked to perform a number of prospective memory tasks that could be scored objectively. These tasks included: returning information, namely the consent form and the diary; making two phone c a l l s , one for each of the two laboratory sessions; keeping two appointments, one for each of the two laboratory sessions; and completing tasks as s p e c i f i e d . Laboratory tasks. Participants were asked to complete a number of laboratory-based memory tests, including r e c a l l i n g the information contained in two short paragraphs (Modified Logical Memory) , r e c a l l i n g three sequences of 162 either eight or nine numbers (Serial Digit Learning), r e c a l l i n g a series of twelve items (Buschke Cued Re c a l l ) , recognizing and r e c a l l i n g information about previously seen pictures of people (Names and Faces), and r e c a l l i n g items from l i s t s they had produced (the Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s ) . The Modified Logical Memory test consisted of the Babcock and Portland paragraphs presented in Lezak (1983, p. 438) and reproduced in Appendix G. Both paragraphs describe a disaster that occurred i n a specified location at a p a r t i c u l a r time. The S e r i a l Digit Learning task involved learning a sequence of either eight or nine numbers (see Benton, Hamsher, Varney and Spreen, 1983). Participants with either less than 12 years of education or over 64 years of age were given the eight-number sequence; those with either more than 12 years of education or less than 64 years of age were given the nine-number sequence (cf. Benton et. a l . , 1983). There were three alternate forms for each length, but because some of the forms seemed more d i f f i c u l t than others, part i c i p a n t s were given a l l three forms using a Latin square design. For the Buschke Cued Recall task, 12 unrelated words were chosen from an equal number of dif f e r e n t categories in the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Each item was e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d as a member of a unique category. A l l of the 163 words had been produced by 50% or less of the part i c i p a n t s in the norms. The items were typed in the center of 5 cm X 10 cm (2" X 4") white cards. The category labels and the p a r t i c u l a r items used were: musical instrument/accordion; i n s e c t / b u t t e r f l y ; cooking u t e n s i l / s k i l l e t ; t o y / r a t t l e ; flower/daffodil; metal/bronze; four-legged animal/leopard; occupation/banker; part of the body/ankle; type of building/cottage; fruit/strawberry; and bird/dove. In the Names and Faces task, twenty black and white pictures of individuals (10 males, 10 females) approximately 17 years of age were used as s t i m u l i . The pictures were chosen from a high school year book from the mid 1970s. A l l of the males had short hair; a l l of the females had at least shoulder length hair. Five of the males and two of the females wore glasses. Four pictures (two male, two female) were of Asian students. Dress sty l e s were also very similar, for example, a l l of the males were wearing s h i r t s and t i e s . Ten names, occupations, and personality t r a i t s were chosen for use in t h i s task. The names for the males were Lester, Wade, Eugene, Vance, and Darren. Those for the women were Valerie, Colleen, Pamela, Mandy, and Judith. A l l of the names had a frequency of one in the Battig and Montague (1969) category norms. The occupations were neurologist, v i o l i n i s t , anthropologist, optometrist, counsellor, novelist, reporter, shopkeeper, gardener and swimmer. Again, a l l of these had a frequency of one i n the 164 Battig and Montague (1969) norms. The personality t r a i t s were chosen from the Goldberg 1710 Taxonomy of T r a i t Descriptive Adjectives (Goldberg, 1977) based on t h e i r mean so c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings. The mean ratings for each of the ten adjectives were: ta c t l e s s 2.38, arrogant 2.67, clumsy 3.05, aloof 3.16, fussy 3.44, easygoing 7.39, dedicated 7.74, knowledgeable 7.94, cheerful 8.24, and conscientious 8.41. The Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s were produced by the p articipants. The Shopping l i s t contained items a participant shopped for on a regular basis and/or errands that were ca r r i e d out regularly (e.g. going to the l i b r a r y or bank). The Day's Events l i s t contained a c t i v i t i e s the participant would normally carry out during a t y p i c a l day (e.g. getting up, having breakfast, going to work). Procedure As in the f i r s t study, interested individuals were sent two copies of a consent form and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. They were asked to complete one copy of the form and mail i t back to the investigator by a s p e c i f i e d date. They were also asked to phone the investigator the day the consent form was mailed to arrange a time for the f i r s t of two testing sessions. Each of these sessions took approximately one and a half hours and was conducted either in the laboratory or in the participant's home (whichever was most convenient for the ind i v i d u a l ) . 165 Session 1. In the f i r s t session, pa r t i c i p a n t s were asked to put t h e i r name, address and phone number on a 3" by 5" (7.5 cm by 12.5 cm). They were also asked to complete both the participant information form and the Memory Questionnaire (MQ1). Half the participants were asked to complete the index card and information form i n pen and the MQ1 i n p e n c i l ; the other half were asked to complete the f i r s t two forms in pencil and the MQ1 i n ink. This procedure was followed in order to examine whether partic i p a n t s would remember to switch writing instruments at the appropriate time (cf. the "red pen test" of Dobbs and Rule, 1987) . Participants were then given the Modified Logical Memory task. They were t o l d they would be read two short s t o r i e s that they were to think of as newspaper a r t i c l e s . They were also t o l d that, immediately after each story was read, they would be asked to r e c a l l as much of i t as they could. The Babcock paragraph was always read f i r s t , followed by the Portland paragraph. After a 15 to 20 minute delay (during which they performed other a c t i v i t i e s ) , p a r t i c i p a n t s were again asked to r e c a l l as much of each story as they could, in either order. Each r e c a l l attempt was tape recorded, and the tapes were l a t e r transcribed verbatim. After both paragraphs had been recalled for the f i r s t time, participants were given the Names and Faces task. 166 They were t o l d they would be shown pictures and given information about 10 people. They were also t o l d that, immediately following t h i s presentation, they would be asked to r e c a l l as much of that information as they could. They were then shown ten pictures (fiv e males, f i v e females), one at a time. Rate of presentation was self-paced. A name, occupation, and personality t r a i t were associated with each picture. The p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s assigned to each picture were randomly determined for every participant. Once a l l the pictures had been presented, participants were shown them again, one at a time, and asked to provide as much information about each person as they could remember. They were encouraged to guess, and were informed that the same information could be attributed to more than one picture. Then, in order to determine whether more information was available to the participant than he or she had been able to r e c a l l when the pictures were shown, the pa r t i c i p a n t was asked to r e c a l l as many of the names, occupations, and personality t r a i t s as they could, independently of the pictures. Once immediate memory for the Names and Faces task had been assessed, participants were asked to construct two l i s t s : (a) a l i s t of objects they would normally buy, such as grocery items, t o i l e t r i e s , stamps (the Shopping l i s t ) , and (b) a l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s they would normally perform during the course of a t y p i c a l day, such as getting up, 167 having breakfast, and going to work (the Day's Events l i s t ) . I f p a r t i c i p a n t s indicated they did not normally buy many items, they were encouraged to include errands they regularly performed (e.g. going to the bank or l i b r a r y ) . P articipants were t o l d that the two l i s t s could be reasonably general, although i f they included grocery items, they had to specify each item (e.g. by writing "meat", " f r u i t s " , "vegetables", e t c . ) . Half of the parti c i p a n t s were asked to construct the Day's Events l i s t f i r s t , followed by the Shopping l i s t ; the other half were asked to construct the l i s t s in the reverse order. Immediately a f t e r both l i s t s had been completed, participants were asked to r e c a l l the information contained on the l i s t they had written f i r s t , followed by r e c a l l of t h e i r second l i s t . P articipants were then asked for delayed r e c a l l of the paragraphs on the Modified Logical Memory task. Next, participants were given the S e r i a l D i g i t Learning task. They were to l d they would be read a t o t a l of three sequences of eight or nine numbers (whichever was appropriate) . They were also t o l d they would be read one sequence, asked to r e c a l l as much of i t as they could, read the sequence again, asked for r e c a l l , and so on, u n t i l i t had been repeated correctly twice in a row. They would then be read the next number sequence and the procedure would be repeated. The numbers in each sequence were read aloud to the p a r t i c i p a n t at the rate of approximately one per second. 168 Once a l l of the numbers in the sequence had been presented, the p a r t i c i p a n t attempted to repeat i t aloud. Recall was self-paced, and participants were allowed to correct t h e i r responses. The next sequence of numbers was presented either a f t e r the participant had c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d the sequence on two consecutive t r i a l s or a f t e r 12 t r i a l s . Approximately 15 to 20 minutes a f t e r the pictures had o r i g i n a l l y been presented, the participants were then given a delayed r e c a l l test for the Names and Faces task. They were shown a l l 20 pictures (10 old and 10 new), and for each one, were asked to indicate whether they had seen the picture before. If they thought they had been shown the picture, they were to r e c a l l as much information about the person as they could. Again, participants were encouraged to guess. They were also t o l d that they could report the same information for more than one stimulus. Once a l l of the pictures had been presented, participants were asked to r e c a l l as many of the names, occupations, and personality t r a i t s as they could. F i n a l l y , approximately 15 to 20 minutes a f t e r the l i s t s had been constructed, participants were asked to r e c a l l t h e i r Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s in the same order as before. Once these tasks were completed, participants were given a memory diary and asked to keep i t for one week. Approximately half of the participants were asked to s t a r t 169 the diary the same day; the others were asked to s t a r t i t the next day. As was the case i n Study 4, partic i p a n t s were asked to indicate the date and the day of the week when they started the diary, to put the date and time at the top of each entry, and to f i l l out one information sheet for each unique or unusual event they intended to do during the day. Participants were requested to return the diary during the second test session. In addition to keeping the diary, they were asked to c a l l to arrange for the second t e s t session. Half of the participants were asked to make the c a l l the next day, half were asked to make i t three days l a t e r . This completed the f i r s t test session. Session 2. In the second session, pa r t i c i p a n t s were f i r s t given the Buschke Cued Recall task. The procedure for t h i s task was similar to that used by Buschke (1984) •. The 12 stimulus cards were placed in front of the par t i c i p a n t s in a three by four array and were v i s i b l e throughout the learning phase. The same arrangement was used for a l l parti c i p a n t s . The category labels were then presented, one at a time, and participants were asked to search for, and ide n t i f y , the item that belonged to the category. These items were i d e n t i f i e d in a random order to encourage repeated search of the array. Correct i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the items indicated the participant could understand and use the category labels to name the items, thus making i t possible to use the same labels to e l i c i t cued r e c a l l . Following a 170 60 second d i s t r a c t o r task, during which they counted backwards from 100 aloud, the partic i p a n t s were asked to verbally r e c a l l as many of the items as possible. Order of r e c a l l was noted. In an e f f o r t to e l i c i t r e c a l l of items s t i l l a vailable i n memory, category labels were presented, one at a time, for any items not retrieved during free r e c a l l . Total r e c a l l (the sum of free and cued r e c a l l ) provided an estimate of the number of items available i n memory on each t r i a l . A l l part i c i p a n t s remembered a l l items either during free or cued r e c a l l . Had an item not been retrieved, i t would have been presented again before the next r e c a l l t r i a l . Six r e c a l l t r i a l s were given immediately; a seventh t r i a l was given approximately 15 to 20 minutes l a t e r , after p a r t i c i p a n t s had completed the Memory Failures Questionnaire (MFQ) and the Memory Questionnaire (for the second time, MQ2). F i n a l l y , the semi-structured, follow-up interview used in Study 4, was administered. The partic i p a n t s were then debriefed and thanked for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Summary and predictions In summary, participants were asked: to mail t h e i r consent form by a specified time; to phone for two appointments (one for each of the two tes t sessions) ; to show up at the appointed times (or to phone and arrange another time); to complete some information in ink and other information in pe n c i l ; to write the date and the day of the 171 week on the f i r s t page of t h e i r diary as well as the date and the time of each entry in the diary; to return t h e i r diary i n the second session; and f i n a l l y , to complete a number of standard memory tasks. Prospective memory was assessed both by the diary and the MFQ. Prospective memory was also assessed by determining whether participants completed the assigned tasks (e.g. mailing i n the consent form, making phone c a l l s , f i l l i n g out forms, and including s p e c i f i c information in the diaries) as instructed. Retrospective memory was assessed using both the standard memory tasks and the follow-up interview. Based on the findings obtained i n Study 4, several predictions were made. F i r s t , i t was expected that younger participants would report more diary entries than older participants, but that the proportion of entries remembered would be higher for older individuals that for younger ones. Second, scores on the MFQ were not expected to vary as a function of age. Third, there was no reason to expect that people's perceptions of th e i r own memory a b i l i t e s (as measured by the MQ) would d i f f e r over time. Fourth, age differences were not expected for completing the various behavioral measures of prospective memory as requested. This included returning materials, making the phone c a l l s , showing up for appointments, and completing several of the tasks i n a s p e c i f i e d manner. F i f t h , i t was expected that i f 172 the diary, the MFQ and the various behavioral measures are a l l measures of prospective memory performance, they would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated. Sixth, i t was also expected that younger participants would score higher than older participants on the follow-up interview. Seventh, based on several studies of memory and aging (see Kausler, 1985, for a review), i t was hypothesized that younger participants would perform better on a l l of the standard memory tasks than older participants. Eighth, i t was predicted that i f the interview was a measure of retrospective memory as suggested above, i t would be related to performance on standard memory tests. F i n a l l y , since the pattern of results obtained in Study 4 for the interview were equivocal, i t was again hypothesized that i f prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes, performance on prospective and retrospective memory tasks would not be correlated (K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982). Scoring Self-report measures Memory diary. The memory diary was scored both with respect to the t o t a l number of entries (including both remembered and forgotten items), and the proportion of entries remembered. Since the t o t a l number of entries could vary between participants, the proportion, rather than the absolute number, of items remembered was used. 173 Memory Failures Questionnaire. As in Study 4, the t o t a l number of memory f a i l u r e s reported on the MFQ was used in a l l analyses involving t h i s variable. Memory Questionnaire. Six scores were obtained for each administration of the MQ, f i v e for the various scales, and one for the t o t a l . Behavioral measures Return materials. Participants were asked to return two things: t h e i r consent form and t h e i r diary. Because individuals were not considered to be in the study unless they returned t h e i r consent form, i t s return, as such, was not scored; one point was awarded for returning the form by the s p e c i f i e d date. As in the previous study, a one day grace period was used when the consent form was returned by mail. Individuals were asked to return t h e i r diary during the second session. One point was awarded for returning the diary, and a second point, for returning i t during the session. Thus, a t o t a l of three points could be awarded for returning the materials. Make phone c a l l s . Participants were asked to make two - phone c a l l s ; one was to be made when they returned t h e i r consent form, and the second, either one or three days a f t e r the f i r s t test session. For each c a l l , one point was awarded for making the c a l l (within two days of the speci f i e d day). A second point was awarded i f the c a l l was made as requested. For the f i r s t c a l l , t h i s meant on, or 174 by, the date the consent form was to be mail. For the second c a l l , i t meant on the specified day. A t o t a l of four points could be awarded for making the phone c a l l s . Keep appointments. Participants were asked to keep two appointments, one for each test session. One point was awarded for keeping each appointment (or phoning and cancelling an appointment), for a maximum of two points. Complete tasks as specified. Participants were asked to complete several of the tasks in a s p e c i f i e d manner. For each diary entry, participants were asked to note both the date and the time. Because the number of entries varied between part i c i p a n t s , scores were based on the proportion of entries that included the specified information. Participants were also asked to begin the diary on a pa r t i c u l a r day, and to put the date and the day of the week the diary was started on the f i r s t page of the diary. One point was awarded for doing each part of t h i s task, for a possible t o t a l of three points. At the beginning of the f i r s t t e s t session, participants were asked to complete three forms (an index card, the Participant Information Form, and the Memory Questionnaire) . They were asked to complete both the index card and the information form in either pen or pencil, and then switch writing instruments to complete the Memory Questionnaire. One point was awarded for completing each of the forms as s p e c i f i e d , and an additional point was awarded 175 i f the participant remembered to switch writing instruments before completing a l l three forms. A t o t a l of four points could be awarded for t h i s task. As noted, participants were also asked to put t h e i r name, address, and phone number on an index card. One point was awarded for each of the following: t h e i r name, a street address, the c i t y , t h e i r postal code, and a phone number (either at home or at work), for a possible t o t a l of fiv e points. Excluding the date and time data for the diary entries (which were scored in terms of proportions) , a t o t a l of 12 points could be awarded for completing the tasks as s p e c i f i e d . Laboratory tasks Modified Logical Memory. Participants' r e c a l l of the two paragraphs was recorded on tape then l a t e r transcribed verbatim. Each paragraph contained 21 idea units and points were awarded for remembering the g i s t of each idea unit, for a t o t a l possible score of 42 points (cf. Lezak, 1983). The a l l o c a t i o n of points i s described in greater d e t a i l in Appendix G. Two judges scored a l l of the transcriptions ( i . e . both immediate and delayed r e c a l l of both paragraphs). Interjudge r e l i a b i l i t y ranged from .91 to .97, with an o v e r a l l r e l i a b i l i t y of .95. The average score awarded by 176 the two judges was used in a l l analyses involving t h i s measure. S e r i a l Digit Learning. Two points were awarded for each correct t r i a l and for each t r i a l (up to T r i a l 12) that did not have to be administered. One point was awarded for t r i a l s i n which one number was missing, added or substituted to an otherwise correct r e c a l l or when the positions of two consecutive numbers were reversed (cf. Benton et a l . , 1983). The t o t a l possible score for each number sequence was 24. The average t o t a l score for the three alternate forms was used in a l l analyses involving t h i s measure. Buschke Cued Recall. One point was awarded for each item c o r r e c t l y recalled, either by free or cued r e c a l l (Buschke, 1984). The average number of items remembered by free r e c a l l across the f i r s t s i x t r i a l s was used as a measure of immediate r e c a l l . The number of items remembered by free r e c a l l on the seventh t r i a l was used as a measure of delayed r e c a l l . Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s . For both immediate and delayed r e c a l l of these l i s t s , one point was awarded for each item correctly recalled according to the participant's o r i g i n a l l i s t . Because the number of items produced on these l i s t s varied within and between participants, the proportion of items correctly r e c a l l e d on both these l i s t s (considered together) were used in a l l analyses involving t h i s measure. 177 Names and Faces. Recall of the names, occupations and personality t r a i t s associated with each of the pictures was scored in two ways. F i r s t , one point was awarded for correct l y r e c a l l i n g the name, occupation, and t r a i t for each picture, for a possible t o t a l of three points per picture. Since participants often remembered a name, occupation or t r a i t without remembering the person associated with that information, t h i s scoring method yielded a conservative estimate of the amount of information remembered. Thus, a second method was used: one point was awarded for each name, occupation or t r a i t that was c o r r e c t l y remembered, for a possible t o t a l of t h i r t y points. Scores obtained using t h i s l a t t e r method were used in a l l of the analyses involving t h i s variable. Recognition memory for both new and previously seen pictures was also assessed. Follow-up interview. As was the case i n Study 4, only the f i r s t part of the follow-up interview was scored, with one point being awarded for each piece of information requested (e.g. the investigator's name, the purpose of the study) for a possible t o t a l of 36 points. Results Co-operation Co-operation was assessed by asking participants to indicate, using a five-point scale, how often they did t h e i r best to complete the various tasks. Seventy-seven percent indicated they "always" did the i r best, 20% indicated they 178 "often" did, and 3% indicated they "sometimes" did the best they could. The results are presented in two phases. Each measure i s considered i n d i v i d u a l l y , followed by an examination of the relations among the measures. As i n previous studies, age effects were f i r s t examined using age as a continuous variable, then the sample was divided into f i v e discrete age groups, and the data were re-analyzed. Correlational analyses were conducted in the former instance; analyses of variance were carried out in the l a t t e r case. The f i v e age groups were the same as those used in the two previous studies. The number of participants in each group were 25, 20, 36, 30, and 2 3 for the young, young-middle age, middle age, old-middle age, and old groups, respectively. Self-report measures Memory diary. Means and standard deviations for both the number of diary entries reported and the proportion of diary entries remembered for each age group are presented in Table 9. The number of diary entries ranged from 3 to 32 with a mean of 11.22 (sd = 4.99). The proportion of items remembered ranged from 0.40 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.89 (sd = 0.13). On the basis of findings obtained in Study 4, i t was expected that younger participants would report a greater number of diary entries than older participants. This was not obtained: the number of entries reported (both 179 remembered and forgotten intentions) was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age. A one-way ANOVA using the t o t a l number of entries reported as the dependent variable and age group as the independent variable was also not s i g n i f i c a n t . As i n the previous study, however, the proportion of items remembered was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related with age, r(131) = .17, p < .03, with older participants remembering more items than younger individuals. A one-way ANOVA, using age group as the independent variable and the proportion of diary entries remembered as the dependent variable, was also s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4, 128) = 2.65, p < .04. Since B a r t l e t t ' s t e s t for homogeneity of variance was s i g n i f i c a n t , follow-up comparisons were conducted used Scheffe's test. None of the pairwise comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t , nor were several of the more meaningful complex comparisons. These findings indicate that the results of the ANOVA should be interpreted with caution. Memory Failures Questionnaire. Means and standard deviations for scores on the MFQ for each age group are presented i n Table 9. Based on the findings obtained in Study 4, scores on the MFQ were not expected to vary as a function of age. The res u l t s indicated that age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the number of memory f a i l u r e s reported on t h i s questionnaire, r(132) = -.14, p < .05, suggesting that older participants 180 Table 9 Means and standard deviations f i n parentheses) for the  memory diary, the MFQ and the behavioral measures for each  age group Measure Y Age Y-m Group M O-m 0 a No. of diary 11. 32 10.90 11.94 11. 60 9.78 entries (5 . 58) (6 .19) (4 .96) (4 . 64) (3 . 59) Prop, of .85 .93 .89 .86 .95 entries (. 15) (. 09) (• 12) (• 16) (• 10) remembered MFQ 8 . 60 7 .25 6 . 03 6 .73 6 . 09 (4. 82) (5. 21) (4. 37) (6. 03) (5. 94) Return 2 . 64 2 . 85 2 .72 2 .90 2 .91 materials* 3 (• 49) (• 49) (• 61) (• 31) .(- 29) Make phone 2 . 08 2 .50 2 . 50 2 .80 2 .91 c a l l s f i - 47) (1. 61) Cl- 46) (1. 32) (1- 35) Complete tasks l l . 12 10 .90 io .51 10 .67 10 .04 as s p e c i f i e d (1. 13) (1. 25) (1- 42) (1- 58) (2. 08) Note: a Y = young (18 to 30 year olds); Y-m = young-middle age (31 to 40 year o l d s ) ; M = middle age (41 to 55 year olds); O-m = old-middle age (56 to 65 year olds); and 0 = old (66 years of age and older). b Total possible scores 181 are: for Return materials, 3; for make phone c a l l s , 4; and for Complete tasks as spe c i f i e d , 12. 182 reported fewer memory f a i l u r e s than younger p a r t i c i p a n t s . However, a one-way ANOVA using age group as the independent variable revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . Memory Questionnaire. The MQ was administered twice, once at the beginning of the f i r s t session, and again near the end of the second session. Means and standard deviations for each scale on the MQ for each administration are presented in Table 10. Based on the results obtained in Study 4, i t was expected that scores on the two administrations of the MQ would be s i m i l i a r . A repeated measures MANOVA was s i g n i f i c a n t , Wilks Lambda = .91, F(5, 125) = 2.60, p < .03, suggesting that scores on the MQ d i f f e r e d as a function of time. Follow-up correlated t-tests on the f i v e scales indicated that participants reported using memory strategies more on MQ2 than on MQ1. None of the other r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t . A correlated t - t e s t conducted on t o t a l scores for the two administrations of the MQ was not s i g n i f i c a n t . To further examine the results from the MQ, two one-way MANOVAs were conducted, one for each administration of the MQ, using age group as the independent variable and scores on the f i v e scales as the dependent measures. For MQ1, the res u l t s of the likelihood r a t i o test were s i g n i f i c a n t , Wilks Lambda = .74, F(20, 416) = 1.96, p < .01. Follow-up ANOVAs revealed s i g n i f i c a n t age ef f e c t s for Change over time, F(4, 129) = 5.12, p < .001. Follow-up pairwise comparisons were 183 Table 10 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for each  scale on the MO for each age group S c a l e 3 Age Group Y Y-m M O-m O b Prospective memory 1 24 . 60 26.20 26. 14 26.80 26.83 (5.82) (5.69) (4.95) (5.18) (4.30) 2 24 . 08 26. 65 25. 50 26.70 27.04 (5.39) (4.66) (4.71) (5.52) (3.97) Achievement and motivation 1 . 37.20 36.40 37.44 35. 57 38.48 (4.82) (4.03) (5.02) (7.17) (5.09) 2 37.72 35.50 37 . 33 36.87 39.04 (5.14) (4.93) (4.45) (6.29) (5.17). Change over time 1 19.60 20.40 16. 53 16. 20 14.70 (5.14) (6.10) (5.61) (4.99) (3.23) (con't) 184 Table 10 (con't) Scale Y Y Age -m Group M 0 -m 0 Evaluation of one' s own memory 1 35 .40 36 .45 34 . 33 31 .97 34 .44 (6. 08) (9. 43) (6. 44) (7. 42) (6. 32) 2 34 .56 34 .85 34 .50 32 . 77 34 . 39 (6. 42) (8. 67) (6. 32) (6. 97) (6. 03) Use of strategies 1 21 .88 21 .20 21 . 50 20 .47 23 . 39 (4. 55) (3. 29) (4. 37) (5. 49) (4. 16) 2 23 .76 23 . 05 22 . 64 21 .77 23 . 04 (6. 45) (3. 33) (4. 45) (4. 29) (3. 27) Total 1 138 . 68 140 .55 135 .94 131 . 00 137 .83 (18 . 91) (19. 29) (11. 81) (19. 48) (12. 66) 2 139 .08 140 .20 137 . 11 133 .97 137 . 57 (20. 28) (18. 29) (12. 94) (18. 56) (11. 71) Note: a The f i r s t value refers to the average score for the f i r s t administration of the MQ ( i . e . MQ1); the second refers to the average score for the second administration ( i . e . MQ2). Total possible scores for each of the scales are: Prospective memory = 3 5; Achievement and motivation = 45; Change over time = 35; Evaluation of one's own memory = 60; Use of strategies = 30; and Total 205. b Y = young (18 to 30 years of age); Y-m = young-middle age (31 to 4 0 years of age); M = middle age (41 to 55 years of age); O-m = old middle age (56 to 65 years of age); and O = old (66 years of age and older). 186 calculated using the Spjotvoll-Stoline procedure. Both the young and the young-middle aged( groups scored higher on t h i s scale than the old group, suggesting that older individuals may be more aware of memory changes or may have greater expectations that memory w i l l change with age, than younger ind i v i d u a l s . None of the other pairwise comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . A s i m i l a r pattern of results was obtained for MQ2. The l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o test from the MANOVA was s i g n i f i c a n t , Wilks Lambda = .76, 1(20, 416) = 1.76, p < .02. Follow-up univariate analyses again revealed s i g n i f i c a n t age e f f e c t s for Change over time, F(4, 129) = 4.40, p < .002. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using the Spjotvoll-Stoline procedure indicated that, as for MQ1, both the young and the young-middle aged groups scored higher than the old group. None of the other pairwise comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . Two ANOVAs were conducted, one for each administration of the MQ, using t o t a l score as the dependent variable and age group as the independent variable. Neither analysis was s i g n i f i c a n t . Behavioral measures Means and standard deviations for scores on each of the behavioral measures are presented in Table 9. Return things. Based on previous findings, there was no reason to expect that age differences would be observed on t h i s task. The results indicated that t h i s was not the 187 case: returning materials ( i . e . the consent form and the diary) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age, r(132) = .19, E < .01, suggesting that older participants returned more materials than younger individuals. Nevertheless, since a one-way ANOVA using age group as the independent variable was not s i g n i f i c a n t , t h i s r e s u l t should be interpreted with caution. Make phone c a l l s . As noted, participants were asked to make two phone c a l l s to arrange appointment times for the tes t i n g sessions. Remembering to make the c a l l s was not expected to vary as a function of age. Nevertheless, age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with making the c a l l s , r(132) = .18, p < .02, again suggesting that older participants performed better on t h i s task than younger individuals. A one-way ANOVA was not s i g n i f i c a n t , however, suggesting that the c o r r e l a t i o n a l results should be interpreted with caution. At the end of the f i r s t t e s t i n g session, participants were asked to phone to arrange for the second te s t i n g session. Half of the participants were asked to make the c a l l the next day, and half were asked to make i t three days l a t e r . A one-way ANOVA, using the two time intervals as the independent variable, was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Keep appointments. Participants were asked to remember two appointments, one for each laboratory session. Only six participants (4%) f a i l e d to either show up or c a l l to 188 reschedule one of the appointments. Therefore, t h i s measure was not considered further. Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d . Participants were asked to complete four tasks i n a specified manner. They were asked to st a r t the diary on a specified day and to put the date and day of the week on the f i r s t page of t h e i r diary. For each diary entry, they were asked to include the date and the time of the entry. They were also asked to switch writing instruments (from-pen to pencil or vice versa) while completing three forms, and to f i l l out the forms using a s p e c i f i e d writing instrument. F i n a l l y , participants were asked to put s p e c i f i c information on an index card. As noted, half of the participants were asked to s t a r t the diary the same day the f i r s t session was completed, half were asked to s t a r t i t the next day. A one-way ANOVA revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s due to t h i s manipulation. A l l but one participant included the date, and a l l but 17 participants (13%) included the time, on the diary entries. Thus, t h i s measure was not examined further. As in the previous study, performance on t h i s task may have been at c e i l i n g because of the structure of the diary forms. Based on findings obtained in Study 4, there was no reason to expect that completing the various tasks as s p e c i f i e d would vary as a function of age. In order to determine whether t h i s finding was replicated in the f i f t h study, a summary score based on the other three behavioral 189 tasks ( i . e . star t i n g the diary, switching writing instruments, and completing the index card) was calculated. A t o t a l of 12 points could be awarded. The data indicated that age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to completing the tasks, r(130) = -.25, p < .002. However, a one-way ANOVA involving the f i v e age groups revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . Correlations with each of the individual tasks revealed that age was related to remembering to switch writing instruments and complete the three forms with the s p e c i f i e d instrument, r(132) = -.36, p < .001 (cf. Dobbs & Rule, 1987). A one-way ANOVA was also s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4,129) = 4.48, p < .002. Neither the c o r r e l a t i o n a l nor the univariate analyses revealed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s for sta r t i n g the diary and completing the index card. A stepwise multiple regression analysis involving a l l of the behavioral measures ( i . e . returning materials, making phone c a l l s , starting the diary, switching writing instruments and completing the index card) indicated that switching writing instruments and returning materials were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age, R = .41, F(2, 129) = 13.13, p < .001. Comparisons between the se l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures As was the case in Study 4, comparisons between the sel f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures of prospective memory were assessed using simple correlations. The results are presented in Tables 11 and 12. A l l results that were 190 s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .05 or less are indicated in these tables. Given the number of correlations that were computed, however, several of these may be s i g n i f i c a n t by chance alone. Therefore, i n an e f f o r t to control familywise error rate (and to err on the side of being too conservative, rather than too l i b e r a l ) only those correlations that were s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .001 were considered r e l i a b l e , and thus are discussed in the text. A l l other findings were ignored. Similar procedures were followed for the results presented in Tables 14 to 17. Note that using the p < .001 l e v e l tends to be somewhat conservative for these tables as well. It was hypothesized that i f the diary, the MFQ, and the various behavioral measures were assessing prospective memory performance, s i g n i f i c a n t correlations would be observed between the self-report and objective measures. The r e s u l t s are presented in Table 11. As the table indicates, the two self-report measures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated, and two of. the behavioral measures (returning materials and making phone c a l l s ) were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y related. For the most part, there seems to be no r e l a t i o n between the sel f - r e p o r t and objective measures of prospective memory performance, thus confirming findings reported i n Study 4. 191 Table 11 Correlations between the self-report and behavioral measures  of prospective memory Measure Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 1- No. of entries 2- Prop. of -.04 entries remembered 3- MFQ -.10 4- Return .06 materials 5- Make .07 phone c a l l s 6- Complete .15 tasks as specified Note: * g < .05. ** p < .001. The degrees of freedom vary from 130 to 132. -.32 -.17* -.01 -.16* -.06 .37** -.06 -.16* .06 .11 192 In order to determine whether performance on s e l f -report and behavioral measures of prospective memory was related to scores on the metamemory questionnaire (the MQ), Pearson correlations were calculated between the various prospective memory measures and scores on the MQ. Scores on each of the scales were averaged across the two administrations of the MQ. The results are presented i n Table 12. This table indicates that, in accordance with both the results reported above, and the findings reported by Dobbs and Rule (1987), there i s l i t t l e evidence that scores on a metamemory measure correlate with scores on prospective memory tasks. Nevertheless, three s i g n i f i c a n t correlations do stand out. F i r s t , Prospective memory was negatively correlated with scores on the MFQ, suggesting, as in Study 4, that greater awareness of one's a b i l i t y to carry out prospective memory tasks produces fewer memory f a i l u r e s . Second, Evaluation of one's own memory was also negatively correlated with scores on the MFQ. If i t i s assumed that evaluation of one's memory as good or bad in p a r t i c u l a r types of situations i s influenced, at least i n part, by one's actual a b i l i t y to perform in such situations, and that the i n d i v i d u a l modifies his or her behavior to avoid memory f a i l u r e s , then t h i s negative correlation may also be interpreted as greater awareness of one's a b i l i t y to perform in p a r t i c u l a r situations produces fewer memory f a i l u r e s . Third, Prospective memory was also correlated with the 193 Table 12 Correlations between scales on the MQ and the self - r e p o r t  and behavioral measures of prospective memory Scale Measure P A C E S rpa No. of .17* -.08 .16* .19* . 02 .17* diary entries Prop, of .27*** -.01 . 09 . 15* . 00 .18* entries remembered MFQ .38*** . 10 -.13 *** -. 26 .14* -.20** Return .15* . 00 -.10 -.03 .17* . 05 materials Make phone .14* -.02 -.17* . 12 . 04 . 04 c a l l s Complete .15* -.13 . 07 . 03 -.07 .02 tasks as sp e c i f i e d Note: aP = Prospective memory; A = Achievement and motivation; C = Change over time; E = Evaluation of one's own memory; S = Use of memory strategies; T = Total score (sum of P, A, C, E, and S). 194 * E <.05. ** E <.01. *** E <«001. The degrees of freedom vary from 131 to 132. 195 proportion of diary entries remembered. This l a t t e r r e s u l t may simply r e f l e c t the fact that both measures are assessing memory for intended actions. Laboratory tasks Means and standard deviations for each of the laboratory tasks are presented i n Table 13. It was predicted that performance on the various laboratory tasks would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age with younger participants performing better than older individuals. The results, which are presented in Table 14, support t h i s hypothesis. A stepwise multiple regression analysis, involving the nine variables included in the table, indicated that the immediate r e c a l l measure for the Names and Faces task, and the delayed measures for the Modified Logical Memory task and the Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age, R = .63, F(3, 97) = 21.64, p < .001. The results of the univariate analyses on each of the laboratory measures using age group as the independent variable are summarized in Table 15. For the most part, the pairwise comparisons indicate that the youngest participants (those 18 to 30 years old) performed better than participants in the two oldest groups (the old-middle aged and the old) . The young-middle aged (those 31 to 40) also performed better than the old (those 66 and older) on the majority of the tasks. F i n a l l y , the middle-aged group 196 Table 13 Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for each of the laboratory tasks and the follow-up interview for each  age group Measure 3 Y Y Age Group -m M 0 -m O b MLMi 22 . 34 20 . 97 20 . 34 18 .38 16 . 66 (3. 54) (4. 34) (4. 93) (4. 66) (4. 59) MLMd 20 . 61 16 .58 16 .71 14 .90 12 . 52 (4. 56) (6. 52) (5. 65) (4. 64) (5. 66) SDL 20 . 35 20 .42 19 . 09 18 . 69 19 .41 (2. 77) (3. 16) (4. 84) (4. 63) (3. 9.1) BCRi 10 .83 10 .45 10 . 53 9 .89 9 . 35 (• 94) (1. 09) (• 91) 31) (1. 32) BCRd 11 . 36 11 . 32 11 .31 11 . 10 10 .48 (• 95) (• 89) (1. 0.1) (• 99) (1. 56) NFi 14 .92 13 . 25 12 . 68 10 . 29 9 . 18 (5. 11) (5. 72) (3. 54) (4. 85) (3. 14) NFd 13 . 12 11 .45 10 . 24 8 .21 6 . 27 (5. 53) (6. 07) (3. 79) (4. 57) (3. 21) NFr . 97 .95 .93 .93 . 89 (• 04) (• 07) (• 07) (• 08) (• 08) (con't) 197 Table 13 (con't) Measure Age Group Y Y-m M O-m 0 S&DEi .89 . 84 .85 .77 .72 (.08) (.12) (.10) (.13) (-17) S&DEd .89 .82 .86 .7.4 .74 (.08) (.10) (.09) (.20) (.13) Interview 23 . 12 21.90 21. 53 21. 03 19. 09 (2.52) (4.30) (3.60) (4.05) (3.96) Note: aThe measures and the t o t a l possible points are: MLMi = Modified Logical Memory - immediate, 42; MLMd = Modified Logical Memory - delayed, 42; SDL = S e r i a l Digit Learning, 24; BCRi = Buschke Cued Recall - immediate, 12; BCRd = Buschke Cued Recall - delayed, 12; NFi = Names and Faces - immediate, 30; NFd = Names and Faces - delayed, 30; NFr = Names and Faces - recognition, proportions; S&DEi = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - immediate, proportions; S&DEd = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - delayed, proportions; and Interview = follow-up interview, 36. Y = young (18 to 30 years of age); Y-m = young-middle age (31 to 40 years of age); M = middle age (41 to 55 years of age); 0-m = old-middle age (56 to 65 years of age) ; and 0 = old (66 years of age and older). Table 14 Correlations between age and the laboratory tasks Task r Modified Logical Memory - immediate - . 4 3 * * Modified Logical Memory - delayed -.44** S e r i a l Digit Learning -.15* Buschke Cued Recall - immediate -.44** Buschke Cued Recall - delayed -.27** Names and Faces - immediate -.4 5 * * Names and Faces - delayed -.48 Names and Faces - recognition -.38 * * Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - -.41 immediate * * Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - -.3 6 delayed Note: p < .05. p < .001. The degrees of freedom vary from 118 to 132. Table 15 Results of the one-way ANOVAs involving acre groups and the  laboratory tasks 199 Task df Pairwise comparisons' Modified Logical 4, 116 Memory - immediate Modified Logical 4, 116 Memory - delayed S e r i a l D i g i t Learning 4, 124 Buschke Cued Recall - 4, 128 immediate Buschke Cued Recall - 4, 128 delayed Names and Faces - 4, 124 immediate Names and Faces delayed Names and Faces - 4, 125 recognition 5.48 6. 59 *** *** 88 6.85 2 . 67 6.39 *** ** *** 4, 125 7.89 *** 4.94 *** y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o y>m; y>o-m y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o; m>o none s i g n i f i c a n t y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o; m>o y>o (con't) Table 15 (con't) 200 Task df Pairwise comparisons Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -immediate Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -delayed 4, 120 6.40 *** 4, 115 6.30 *** y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o; m>o y>o-m; y>o Note: y = young (18 to 30 years); y-m = young-middle aged (31 to 4 0 years); m = middle-aged (41 to 55 years); o-m = old-middle aged (56 to 65 years); o = old (66 years and older). * p > .05 ** p < .05. *** p < .001. 201 (those 41 to 55) performed better than the old on the immediate r e c a l l tests for the Buschke Cued Recall task and the Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s . They also performed better on the delayed test for the Names and Faces task. Taken together, these results indicate that younger participants performed better than older participants on the retrospective memory measures, as hypothesized. Follow-up interview Based on results obtained in Study 4, i t was expected that performance on the follow-up . interview would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age, with younger participants scoring higher than older participants. Means and standard deviations for each age group are presented in Table 13. The hypothesis was confirmed, r(132) = -.30, p < .001. A one-way ANOVA using age group as the independent variable was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4, 129) = 3.74, p < .01. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using the Spjotvoll-Stoline procedure indicated that the young participants (18 to 30 year olds) remembered more than the old participants (individuals 66 years of age and older) . None of the other pairwise comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . Correlations between the laboratory tasks and the interview It was predicted that i f both the laboratory tasks and the follow-up interview were measures of retrospective memory, performance on the interview should be correlated 202 with performance on the various tasks. The resu l t s , which are presented i n Table 16, supported t h i s hypothesis. Correlations between the prospective and retrospective  memory measures As noted i n the Introduction (and observed i n Study 4 ) , the issue of whether prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes has received equivocal support: Loftus (1971) indicated that prospective and retrospective memory may be influenced by s i m i l a r factors; Wilkins and Baddeley (1978) noted they were negatively related; and Meacham and Leiman (1982, Study 1) and K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987) concluded they involve d i f f e r e n t processes. Based on resu l t s obtained in these l a t t e r two studies (and to some extent i n Study 4), i t was expected that performance on the prospective memory tasks ( i . e . the self-report and behavioral measures) would not be correlated with performance on the retrospective memory tasks. The primary question of interest was whether any of the prospective memory tasks would be correlated with any of the retrospective memory tasks. Therefore, simple correlations were computed for the two sets of measures. The results are presented i n Table 17. As the table indicates, the hypothesis was generally supported. Nevertheless, some of the prospective memory tasks were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with several of the retrospective memory tasks. Namely, both the number of diary entries remembered and completing Table 16 Correlations between the follow-up interview and the laboratory tasks Laboratory task r Modified Logical Memory - immediate .32** Modified Logical Memory - delayed .43** Se r i a l D i g i t Learning .28** Buschke Cued Recall - immediate .34** Buschke Cued Recall - delayed .22* Names and Faces - immediate .42** Names and Faces - delayed .35** Names and Faces - recognition . .22* Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - .27** immediate Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -. .22* delayed from 118 to 132. 204 Table 17 Correlations between the various prospective and  retrospective tasks Prospective memory measures Retrospective 1 2 3 4 5 6 a measures*3 MLMi .17* -.24** .01 -.04 .08 .23** MLMd .17* -.31*** .02 -.12 . 02 .30*** SDL . 03 -.05 -.12 . 02 . 13 * * * . 38 BCRi .15* .17* -. 07 . . 04 . 03 . 13 BCRd . 10 .14* - . 05 - . 01 . 03 . 13 NFi .19* -.24** .15* -.09 -.02 .18* NFd .18* -.21** .14* -.13 -.06 ' .17* NFr . 02 -.11 .03 -.14* -.12 .21** S&DEi . 06 -.17* -.02 . 10 . 05 . 09 S&DEd . 14 -.16* -.08 .01 . 01 ~ „*** . 30 Interview .23 -.18* . 09 . 00 .09 „ * * .20 Note; aThe prospective memory tasks are: 1 = number of diary entries; 2 = proportion of entries remembered; 3 = MFQ; 4 = return materials; 5 = make phone c a l l s ; 6 = complete tasks as spe c i f i e d . DThe retrospective memory tasks are: MLMi = Modified Logical Memory - immediate; MLMd = Modified Logical Memory - delayed; SDL - S e r i a l D i g i t Learning; BCRi = Buschke Cued Recall - immediate; BCRd = 205 Buschke Cued Recall - delayed; NFi = Names and Faces -immediate; NFd = Names and Faces - delayed; NFr = Names and Faces - recognition; S&DEi = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - immediate; S&DEd = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -delayed. * p <.05. ** E <•01. *** E <«001. The degrees of freedom vary from 116 to 131. 206 tasks as specified were correlated with the delayed Modified Logical Memory task. Completing tasks as sp e c i f i e d was also correlated with S e r i a l D i g i t Learning and delayed r e c a l l of the Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s . These correlations suggest that some factor, such as attention as opposed to pure memory, may be important for carrying out these p a r t i c u l a r tasks. To examine the r e l a t i o n between the set of prospective memory measures (as a whole) and the set of retrospective memory measures (as a whole), a canonical c o r r e l a t i o n analysis was conducted. The results, which are presented in Table 18, indicated that only the f i r s t canonical function was s i g n i f i c a n t . The measures that loaded highest on t h i s function were the Modified Logical Memory (both immediate and delayed r e c a l l ) , S e r i a l Digit Learning, recognition of Names and Faces, delayed r e c a l l of the Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s , the MFQ, and Completing tasks as sp e c i f i e d . Interpretation of t h i s function supported the conclusion based on the simple correlations, namely that a l l of these p a r t i c u l a r tasks (both the retrospective and the prospective memory measures) are affected by a sim i l a r factor, such as attention. Discussion The f i f t h , and f i n a l , study in t h i s series of exploratory investigations on prospective memory performance in adults involved both an extension and a r e p l i c a t i o n of 207 Table 18 Canonical c o r r e l a t i o n results of prospective and  retrospective measures Root 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Measure13 R: .65 .56 .37 .31 .27 .23 .17 .08 R2: .43 .31 .14 .09 .07 .05 .03 .01 MLMi -.47 MLMd -.57 SDL -.66 BCRi -.28 BCRd -.30 NFi -.20 NFd -.16 NFr -.41 S&DEi -.29 S&DEd -.53 Interview -.3 0 No. of diary .04 entries Prop, of entries .25 remembered MFQ .44 a (con't) 208 Table 18 (con't) Measure Root 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Return materials Make phone c a l l s Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d .06 -.08 -.50 Note: aOnly the f i r s t function was s i g n i f i c a n t . bThe retrospective memory tasks are: MLMi = Modified Logical Memory - immediate; MLMd = Modified Logical Memory -delayed; SDL = S e r i a l Digit Learning; BCRi = Buschke Cued Recall - immediate; BCRd = Buschke Cued Recall - delayed; NFi = Names and Faces - immediate; NFd = Names and Faces -delayed; NFr = Names and Faces - recognition; S&DEi = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - immediate; S&DEd = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s - delayed. 209 Study 4. Thus, both self-report and behavioral measures of prospective memory were again used to determine whether prospective memory performance varied as a function of age. In addition, several standard laboratory tasks and the semi-structured follow-up interview were used to assess retrospective memory. Prospective memory measures In Study 4, both the number of diary entries reported and the proportion of entries remembered were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age, but follow-up analyses revealed no differences among the fiv e age groups. In t h i s study, age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with the proportion of entries remembered, but not with the number of entries reported. Once again, however, follow-up analyses f a i l e d to reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the age groups. In Study 4, the number of memory fa i l u r e s reported on the memory questionnaire (the MFQ) was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with age, although in Study 5, a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was obtained. Once again, though, follow-up analyses revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the age groups. Taken together, these results suggest that prospective memory performance does not vary as a function of age when i t i s assessed using self-report measures. Similar results were obtained with the behavioral measures of prospective memory. Both returning materials and making phone c a l l s were p o s i t i v e l y correlated with age, 210 suggesting older participants performed better than t h e i r younger counterparts. Nonetheless, follow-up analyses f a i l e d to reveal any meaningful differences among the age groups. Completing tasks as sp e c i f i e d was negatively correlated with age, suggesting that contrary to the previous findings, younger individuals performed better on t h i s task than older i n d i v i d u a l s . This finding i s primarily due to one task, namely, remembering to switch writing instruments at the appropriate time. The implications of t h i s finding w i l l be considered i n greater d e t a i l below. These results indicate that except for completing tasks as spec i f i e d , performance on prospective memory tasks does not appear to vary as a function of age, thus supporting conclusions drawn by several other researchers (e.g. Moscovitch & Minde, c i t e d by Moscovitch, 1982; Sinnott, 1986a; West, 1984, 1988). It was hypothesized that, i f the se l f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures were both measuring prospective memory, the two sets of measures would be correlated. This was not the case: the self-report measures were correlated with each other and two of the behavioral measures (returning materials and making phone c a l l s ) were correlated. Small (but perhaps nonsignificant) correlations were observed between completing tasks as sp e c i f i e d and both the number of diary entries reported and scores on the MFQ. The proportion of entries remembered was also correlated, to 211 some extent, with returning materials and making phone c a l l s . And, consistent with findings reported by Dobbs and Rule (1987) performance on the MQ was t y p i c a l l y not related to the behavioral measures of prospective memory. By and large, then, there appeared to be no r e l a t i o n between the sel f - r e p o r t and behavioral measures. Similar results have also been reported i n the everyday memory l i t e r a t u r e (e.g. Baddeley, Sunderland & Harris, 1982; Bennett-Levy & Powell, 1980; Broadbent et a l . , 1982; Herrmann, 1982, 1984; Zelinski et a l . , 1980). As i n the fourth study, i t might be argued that t h i s finding i s not unexpected, given that both the memory diary and the MFQ (the two self-report measures) were, i n fact, not measures of prospective memory per se, but retrospective measures of prospective memory. I t would be expected, therefore, that the self-report measures would correlate with the measures of retrospective memory and not with the measures of prospective memory. Minimal support was obtained for t h i s hypothesis (see Table 17) , r e p l i c a t i n g r e s u l t s obtained in Study 4. An al t e r n a t i v e explanation i s that not a l l of the prospective memory measures are assessing the same aspects of prospective memory. For example, the se l f - r e p o r t measures along with two of the behavioral measures (returning materials and making phone c a l l s ) , may be assessing "memory" for intended actions; completing tasks as specified may be assessing more of an 212 "attentional", "vigilance" or "monitoring" component. Support for t h i s conjecture i s provided in Table 17. Many of the large correlations presented i n t h i s table are between retrospective memory measures that have a strong attentional component (e.g. Modified Logical Memory, S e r i a l D i g i t Learning) and completing tasks as spec i f i e d . Retrospective memory measures In accordance with several studies i n the memory and aging l i t e r a t u r e , i t was predicted that younger participants would perform better on the retrospective memory measures than older participants (see Kausler, 1985, for a review of studies examining memory and aging). In general, t h i s hypothesis was confirmed: a l l of the retrospective memory measures were correlated with age, and follow-up univariate analyses indicated that, on immediate r e c a l l tests, both the young and the young-middle age groups ( i . e . participants 18 to 40 years of age) performed better than the oldest p a r t i c i p a n t s (those 66 and above). The youngest group (18 to 30 year olds) also performed better than participants i n the old-middle age group (56 to 65 year olds) . On the delayed tests, the youngest participants consistently performed better than participants in the two oldest groups; that i s , the 18 to 30 years olds scored higher on the delayed r e c a l l tasks than both the 56 to 65 year olds and those 66 and older. Performance on the follow-up interview, which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with the laboratory tasks 213 as hypothesized, revealed similar e f f e c t s . Age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with scores on the interview, and follow-up analyses indicated that the youngest pa r t i c i p a n t s scored higher than the oldest individuals. These res u l t s support those reported i n Study 4 . Prospective and retrospective memory measures One of the major reasons for conducting Study 5 was to determine whether the various measures of prospective and retrospective memory were correlated. Based on results reported by K v a v i l a s h v i l i (1987) and Meacham and Leiman, (1982), i t was expected that no correlations would be observed between these two sets of measures. Although many of the correlations presented in Table 17 are small and non-s i g n i f i c a n t , several were, in fact, r e l a t i v e l y large. In general, large correlations were obtained between completing tasks as specified and various retrospective memory measures. Thus, once again, completing tasks as s p e c i f i e d shows a di f f e r e n t pattern of results than that obtained with the other measures of prospective memory. As noted, these re s u l t s are primarily due to one task, namely switching writing instruments at the appropriate time. Because t h i s task seems to be reasonably t r i v i a l , one might be tempted to dismiss the findings as spurious. Nevertheless, s i m i l a r findings have been obtained by other investigators (e.g. Dobbs & Rule, 1987; Read, personal communication). The findings are p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting, since the length of 214 time between when the instructions (to switch writing instruments) were given and when participants were required to execute them, was approximately 5 to 10 minutes, half as long as the i n t e r v a l used by Dobbs and Rule (1987). Several explanations could account for the finding that younger participants performed better on t h i s task than older p a r t i c i p a n t s . For example, older participants may not have considered the task to be important, and may have chosen not to switch writing instruments as requested. Although the data do not allow t h i s explanation to be addressed d i r e c t l y , i t seems unlikely, since most participants, regardless of age, indicated they did the best they could on a l l of the tasks. A second explanation i s that since switching writing instruments was one of the f i r s t tasks participants were asked to perform, the results may be due to older individuals being more anxious about p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a "memory" study than younger individuals. Again, the data do not allow t h i s explanation to be addressed. But, once more, t h i s explanation seems unlikely, for two reasons. F i r s t , middle-age participants generally seemed more anxious than older participants, which would suggest that i f anxiety were the explanation, the middle-age group(s) should have performed worse on t h i s task than either the younger or the older p a r t i c i p a n t s . Second, and perhaps more importantly, 215 the majority of the participants did not think that switching writing instruments was part of the study. A t h i r d explanation i s that the findings may be r e f l e c t i v e of an attentional, rather than a memorial, component. For example, older participants may not have encoded the request to switch writing instruments, at least to the same extent as younger participants. Or, the request may have been encoded by a l l participants to the same extent, but older participants may not have "monitored" t h e i r environment to the same degree as younger participants and therefore may not have been "cued" to switch writing instruments by MQ1. This explanation i s si m i l a r to Einstein and McDaniel's (1990) notion that a target event may f a i l to cue the intended action at the appropriate time. The t h i r d explanation i s the most promising, since i t can account both for the low correlations between the s e l f -report and behavioral measures of prospective memory, and for the large correlations between several of the prospective and retrospective memory measures. It may also account for some of the discrepancies noted in the prospective memory l i t e r a t u r e . Nevertheless, the hypothesis that some prospective memory tasks may be assessing attentional aspects of remembering intentions and that others may be assessing memorial aspects, needs to be explored further. 216 GENERAL DISCUSSION A review of the ex i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e indicated that, even though the number of empirical papers on prospective memory i s increasing rapidly, there has been l i t t l e attempt to integrate the r e s u l t s of the various studies into a meaningful framework. Closer examination, however, revealed that the l i t e r a t u r e could be divided into f i v e categories, each r e f l e c t i n g a component involved in the performance of a prospective memory task. Nonetheless, three fundamental questions warranted further consideration and were the focus of the research presented i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . These questions were: (a) whether prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes; (b) whether s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral/objective measures of prospective memory correlate; and (c) whether prospective memory varies as a function of age across the adult l i f e span. Different types of tasks, d i f f e r e n t types of processes Baddeley and Wilkins (1984) asserted that prospective and retrospective memory involve similar processes, and further, that prospective memory i s nothing more than an aspect of cognitive functioning that has received l i t t l e attention in the psychological l i t e r a t u r e . Several, findings from the present research question t h i s claim. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that s e l f - r e p o r t measures of prospective memory could not only be developed, but that meaningful information could be obtained with 217 respect to both the types of prospective memory f a i l u r e s people experience, and the kinds of factors that can a f f e c t whether an intention i s performed. Study 3 demonstrated that people's perceptions of t h e i r a b i l i t y to carry out intended actions ( i . e . prospective memory tasks) are not equivalent to t h e i r knowledge of t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s i n general, nor are they equivalent to th e i r awareness of memory changes with increasing age. Furthermore, contrary to expectations, Studies 4 and 5 demonstrated that correlations between self-report and behavioral measures of prospective memory were t y p i c a l l y small and non-significant. Taken together, these findings suggest that, in contrast to Baddeley and Wilkins' (1984) claim, prospective memory i s indeed an important area that warrants further study, for i t provides information about people's a b i l i t y to function on a da i l y basis (cf. Sinnott, 1989a; West, 1984). Nevertheless, the r e s u l t s do not d i r e c t l y address Baddeley and Wilkins' assertion that prospective, and retrospective memory involve s i m i l a r processes. It was expected that, i f prospective and retrospective memory were simply two aspects of the same process, s i g n i f i c a n t correlations would be obtained between measures designed to tap these two types of memory. The evidence presented i n Studies 4 and 5, however, f a i l e d to support t h i s prediction. By and large, n e g l i g i b l e correlations were obtained between the prospective and retrospective memory 218 measures (see also E i n s t e i n & McDaniel, 1990; K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982, Study 1). Further, performance on the retrospective memory measures was affected by age, although performance on the prospective memory measures was not (see also Dobbs & Rule, 1987; Moscovitch & Minde, c i t e d in Moscovitch, 1982; Sinnott, 1989a; West, 1984, 1988). It i s tempting to conclude that prospective and retrospective memory do, in fact, involve d i f f e r e n t processes. Nevertheless, the information needed to support t h i s claim i s not available at the present time. Resolving the issue of whether or not prospective and retrospective memory involve d i f f e r e n t processes, rather than that d i f f e r e n t types of tasks address d i f f e r e n t aspects of the same process, would e n t a i l a comprehensive theory of both prospective and retrospective memory (cf. Dunn & Kirsner, 1989). Not only would t h i s theory need to specify the kinds of processes that are involved in both prospective and retrospective memory (and the experimental variables that would a f f e c t these processes, see Einstein & McDaniel, 1990), i t would also need to specify how d i f f e r e n t processes and tasks are related. Without such a theory, prospective memory research w i l l stagnate. Factors a f f e c t i n g prospective memory Although recognizing the need for a theory i s easy, specifying exactly what such a theory should e n t a i l i s not. The present studies, however, c l e a r l y indicate that the 219 theory must consider both the types of a b i l i t i e s involved in remembering to carry out a planned a c t i v i t y at some point i n the future, and the role non-cognitive factors play i n determining whether an intention i s remembered, and whether once remembered, i t i s carried out. A b i l i t i e s involved i n remembering an intention. I t was noted e a r l i e r that, i n Studies 4 and 5, the majority of the correlations between the prospective and retrospective memory tasks were ne g l i g i b l e . Nevertheless, several measures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related, and i t was speculated that these measures focused on attentional, as opposed to memorial, a b i l i t i e s (cf. Mateer et a l . , 1987; West, 1988). Although remembering to carry out an intended action i s l i k e l y to be influenced by both attention and memory, di f f e r e n t types of a c t i v i t i e s may emphasize one aspect over the other. The type of intention one needs to remember may, in turn, determine which type of memory strategy i s most e f f e c t i v e or appropriate in a given s i t u a t i o n . For example, i f a person remembers he or she has an appointment on a p a r t i c u l a r day, the passage of time may be monitored in order to ensure that the appointment i s met, thus emphasizing the attentional component. In contrast, i f one i s aware that an a c t i v i t y must be done at a s p e c i f i c point in a sequence of actions, a mental or written note may be consulted to determine what that s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y e n t a i l s . In t h i s case, the focus may be on the memorial component. 220 Ei n s t e i n and McDaniel (1990) have offered an alternative explanation for the small or zero correlations between prospective and retrospective memory tasks. They suggest that people generally remember what has to be done, but that an action may not be performed at the appropriate time because the target event f a i l e d to prompt t h e i r memory. Einstein and McDaniel claim that memory for event-based tasks i s cued by the external context within which an individual i s operating; memory for time-based tasks i s dependent on cues generated by the in d i v i d u a l . This view i s not inconsistent with the attention/memory explanation offered above (see Mateer & Sohlberg, 1988). Nonetheless, the two positions would predict d i f f e r e n t patterns of resu l t s for some types of tasks. The attention/memory explanation, for example, would predict that prospective memory tasks that emphasize the vig i l a n c e or monitoring aspect would be highly correlated with measures of attentional processing (e.g. tasks involving s e l e c t i v e attention or switching attention), but not with measures that emphasize the memorial aspect (e.g. rote r e p e t i t i o n tasks; cf. Mateer & Sohlberg, 1988). The internal/external cue perspective, however, would predict that prospective and retrospective memory tasks that r e l i e d on the same type of cue would be correlated; those that r e l i e d on d i f f e r e n t types of cues would be unrelated. As noted e a r l i e r , remembering any type of intention may 221 u t i l i z e both internal and external cues, although some of these cues may be more e f f e c t i v e than others. I f i s assumed, however, that remembering to execute a p a r t i c u l a r intention at, or by, a s p e c i f i e d time u t i l i z e s external cues, then performance on t h i s type of task would be expected to correlate with performance on e x p l i c i t retrospective memory tasks. In contrast, remembering to carry out an a c t i v i t y at some point in a sequence of a c t i v i t i e s should be correlated with performance on i m p l i c i t retrospective memory tasks since, presumably, both would involve in t e r n a l cues (see Graf & Schacter's, 1985, d i s t i n c t i o n between i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t memory tasks). Tasks focusing on attentional processes should have l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on performance. It may be the case that both perspectives are correct, depending on the part i c u l a r tasks under consideration. That i s , i t has been assumed that s i m i l a r c o r r e l a t i o n a l values can be accounted for by the same factor. But, i t i s also possible that di f f e r e n t factors may account for s i m i l a r values. This i s an interesting area for future research. The role of non-cognitive factors. The pattern of correlations obtained between the prospective and retrospective memory measures i n Studies 4 and 5 suggests that not a l l prospective memory tasks are equivalent. The fact that not a l l measures of prospective memory are correlated with each other provides further support for t h i s 2 2 2 contention. It was assumed that both the s e l f - r e p o r t and the behavioral measures were assessing prospective memory. However, self-report measures may r e a l l y be assessing people's perceptions and/or awareness of t h e i r a b i l i t y to carry out planned actions. In contrast, behavioral measures may be assessing t h e i r actual a b i l i t y to remember and carry them out. People's performance on self-report measures may be influenced, to a large extent, by what they can remember (e.g. Morris, 1984). In Studies 4 and 5, for example, the self-report measures were actually retrospective measures of prospective memory, and therefore were influenced by what people could remember which, in turn, may have been affected by the importance of the intended action. People may have remembered intentions having important consequences, but forgotten (and thus, not reported) inconsequential ones. Although the self-report measures of prospective memory may have been affected primarily by cognitive factors, namely memory, the behavioral measures may have been influenced by non-cognitive factors as well (cf. Winograd, 1988). In the studies reported above (and in previous studies), i t was presumed that i f participants did not carry out a p a r t i c u l a r prospective memory task, i t was because they f a i l e d to remember that task. That i s , two assumptions were made: (a) that participants intended to perform the a c t i v i t y as requested; and (b) that f a i l u r e to perform the 223 a c t i v i t y at the appropriate time was due to forgetting, rather than some other non-cognitive factor (such as lack of commitment or motivation, or procrastination). As noted in the Introduction, non-cognitive factors do a f f e c t prospective memory performance, and objective data are not conducive to distinguishing between forgetting and (potentially) confounding variables. Three aspects of the present research suggest that non-cognitive factors f a i l to account for a l l of the findings. F i r s t , a b r i e f inspection of the diary entries indicates that participants often did not carry out t h e i r intentions because they ran out of time, rather than because they did not want to do them. In general, the a c t i v i t i e s did not have to be done on a p a r t i c u l a r day, and therefore, putting them o f f u n t i l the next day had l i t t l e , i f any, consequence. The d i a r i e s contain a plethora of information that needs to be examined further. Second, an attempt was made to make the behavioral tasks meaningful. To t h i s end, they were incorporated into the very structure of the study (e.g. returning the consent form, making the phone c a l l s ) . In other words, the participants were not led to believe that these tasks were part of the studies, and informal questioning indicated that the manipulation was successful. Third, at the end of Studies 4 and 5, participants were asked about t h e i r motivation levels and, in both 224 investigations, the majority indicated they often, or always, did t h e i r best. Similar findings have been reported by Meacham and Leiman (1982) and Meacham and Singer (1977) . Future studies need to d i r e c t l y examine the role of non-cognitive factors on prospective memory performance. This could be done in a number of ways, for example, by manipulating the importance or pleasantness of an intention (cf. K v a v i l a s h v i l i , 1987). Performance on t h i s behavioral measure could be compared with a number of participant-relevant tasks as reported in a memory diary or on a memory questionnaire. Similarly, procrastination could be assessed using a s e l f - r e p o r t measure (e.g. Lay, 1988) . Comparisons could be made between t h i s measure and performance on a number of behavioral measures of prospective memory (such as those used in the studies reported above). The e f f e c t s of fatigue, anxiety, stress, and d i s t r a c t i o n s also need to be considered (see Study 1; Reason, 1979; Reason & Mycielska, 1982). These factors may influence some a c t i v i t i e s more than others (e.g. turning on a k e t t l e versus having dinner with a loved one). They may also a f f e c t the appropriate use of external cues.. For instance, making an appointment while busy with something e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t may result in f a i l i n g to note that appointment on a calendar or i n a day planner. The influence non-cognitive factors may have on prospective 225 memory performance i s an important area, worthy of substantial research. Intentions versus plans In addition to specifying how d i f f e r e n t factors may a f f e c t performance on prospective memory tasks, a theory of prospective memory must distinguish between planned and intended actions. The two terms have been used interchangeably i n t h i s work, but i t i s not clear that they are i d e n t i c a l . For example, one may intend ( i . e . wish, want, need) to carry out a given a c t i v i t y , yet not have a s p e c i f i c plan of action. In some cases, having a plan may simply involve deciding when one i s going to carry out a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y (e.g. I w i l l make a bank deposit during my lunch hour). In others, i t may involve something more akin to Harris and Wilkins' (1982) TWTE model of prospective memory. That i s , one may need to have a s p e c i f i c set of goals and subgoals (e.g. If I have an hour for lunch, and i f the bank i s not too busy, then I w i l l make a bank deposit during my lunch hour). This d i s t i n c t i o n i s important, since i t may influence the types of prospective memory tasks people remember. For example, people may 'plan more for unusual events or a c t i v i t i e s than for routine ones (a party as opposed to brushing one's teeth). This, in turn, may increase the l i k e l i h o o d that the unusual event w i l l be remembered, perhaps because greater e f f o r t has been exerted or because the plan has made the unusual event d i s t i n c t i v e 2 2 6 (cf. Craik & Tulving, 1975). Of course, the consequentiality of the tasks would have to be considered as well. The notion of sequencing i s very interesting, and has the potential to draw together several r e l a t i v e l y divergent areas. For instance, since plans are important i n some types of problem solving tasks, performance on prospective memory tasks may be related to problem solving a b i l i t i e s (cf. Sinnott, 1989a). This may have important implications for working with some types of c l i n i c a l populations (e.g. Alzheimer and head injury patients) because prospective memory problems may be related to d e f i c i t s involving the i n i t i a t i o n and/or performance of sequential actions. Contributions to other areas In addition to unequivocally demonstrating the need for a theory of prospective memory, the present research has provided normative data for adults 18 to 85 years of age for three standard neuropsychological measures: a verbal version of the Buschke Cued Recall t e s t ; the S e r i a l Digit Learning task; and the Modified Logical Memory task. Previously, norms for these measures were generally poor or non-existent. Further, a r e l i a b l e system was developed for scoring the Babcock and Portland paragraphs in the Modified Logical Memory test.. A second scoring system, that w i l l y i e l d data on the actual nature of the information r e c a l l e d , i s currently being developed. This system i s designed to 227 examine whether the amount of s p e c i f i c d e t a i l r e c a l l e d varies as a function of age (cf. West, 1984, 1988). P r a c t i c a l implications of prospective memory research As noted e a r l i e r , interest i n prospective memory i s growing rapidly. Two factors are responsible for t h i s increase. F i r s t , one can obtain information regarding the types of memory f a i l u r e s people experience in everyday l i f e and the importance or perceived e f f e c t of these memory f a i l u r e s on an individual's a b i l i t y to function independently (cf. Sunderland et a l . , 19886). One very interesting question, that remains unanswered, i s why people perceive that t h e i r memory declines as they become older, yet most studies of prospective memory in adults do not reveal age differences. One p o s s i b i l i t y i s that both prospective and retrospective memory do decline with age, but that people become very p r o f i c i e n t at compensating for these memory d e f i c i t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to prospective memory. For example, people may increase both the number and the types of memory aids they use, when they perceive that t h e i r memory i s not at good as i t used to be. Second, prospective memory research can be of value to health care professionals working with particular c l i n i c a l groups, most notably individuals experiencing severe and chronic memory d e f i c i t s . For example, many individuals with traumatic brain injury have d i f f i c u l t y , even years a f t e r 228 t h e i r injury, with both remembering and being able to maintain attention long enough to perform everyday tasks such as shopping, making a phone c a l l , and cooking a meal (Mateer & Sohlberg, 1988; Sohlberg & Mateer, 1987). In order to work on improving these a b i l i t i e s , health care professionals need to have some idea of the types of tasks people must remember to perform on a day-to-day basis, as well as how those without severe memory problems remember to perform these tasks. The a b i l i t y to perform intended actions has t y p i c a l l y been ignored by c l i n i c i a n s working with memory .impaired individuals. Memory functioning has generally been assessed using only laboratory-based retrospective memory measures, and standard treatment techniques have had questionable relevance for everyday l i f e (but see Wilson, Cockburn, Baddeley & Hiorns, 1989). Moffat (1984; see also Crovitz, 1979; Wilson, 1981, 1982), for example, described a number of strategies that can be used for improving memory functioning in brain injured individuals. But, as Harris (1978, 1980) demonstrated, most individuals do not use these strategies under normal circumstances. I t i s not surprising, therefore, that extensive t r a i n i n g on a p a r t i c u l a r strategy often f a i l s to generalize beyond the s p e c i f i c learning s i t u a t i o n (e.g Mateer & Sohlberg, 1988; Moffat, 1984; Schacter, Rich & Stampp, 1985). 229 As a preliminary step to understanding the types of memory problems brain-injured individuals experience, Mateer et a l . (1987) administered a memory questionnaire, that described various types of forgetting experiences, to individuals with, and without, brain i n j u r i e s . Both groups indicated they had the greatest problems with prospective memory and attention. The results of Mateer et a l . ' s study demonstrated that assessment and treatment techniques are needed for remediating prospective memory. Although such techniques are not available at the present time, i t i s hoped that the measures, methodologies, and findings reported in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l be of value to investigators in both experimental and applied settings. 230 REFERENCES Baddeley, A. (1979). The limi t a t i o n s of human memory: Implications for the design of retrospective surveys. In L. Moss & H. Goldstein (Eds.), The r e c a l l method  in s o c i a l surveys (pp. 13-30). London: University of London In s t i t u t e of Education. Baddeley, A., & Wilkins, A. (1984). Taking memory out of the laboratory. In J . E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions, and absent- mindedness (pp. 1-17). London: Academic Press. Baddeley, A., Sunderland, A., & Harris, J . (1982). How well do laboratory based psychological tests predict patients' performance outside the laboratory? In S. Corkin, K. L. Davis, J. H. Growdon, E. Usdin, & R. J. Wurtman (Eds.), Aging. Vol. 19. Alzheimer's  Disease: A report of progress in research (pp. 141-148). New York: Raven Press. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A r e p l i c a t i o n and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal  of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 80 (3, Pt. 2). Beal, C. R. (1985). Development of knowledge about the use of cues to aid prospective r e t r i e v a l . Child  Development, 56, 631-642. Beal, C. R. (1988). The development of prospective memory s k i l l s . In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory:  Current research and issues. Vol. 1. Memory in everyday l i f e (pp. 366-370). Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. Bennett-Levy, J ., & Powell, G. E. (1980). The subjective memory questionnaire (SMQ). An ' investigation into the self - r e p o r t i n g of " r e a l - l i f e " memory s k i l l s . B r i t i s h Journal of Social and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 19, 177-188. Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, 0. (1983). Contributions to neuropsychological  assessment. A c l i n i c a l manual. New York: Oxford University Press. Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The cognitive f a i l u r e s 231 questionnaire (CFQ) and i t s correlates. B r i t i s h  Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 21, 1-16. Bromley, D. B. (1974). The psychology of human ageing. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Buschke, H. (1984). Cued r e c a l l in amnesia. Journal  of C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 6, 433-440. Ceci, S. J., Baker, J . G., & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Prospective remembering, temporal c a l i b r a t i o n , and context. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current  research and issues. Vol. 1. Memory i n everyday  l i f e (pp. 360-365). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 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. Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. J. (1983) Self reports of memory performance as a function of age i n adulthood. Human Learning, 2, 17-28. Cohen, J. (1960). A c o e f f i c i e n t of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological  Measurement. 20(1), 37-46. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. Crovitz, H. F. (1979) Memory retraining in brain-damaged patients: The airplane l i s t . . Cortex, 15, 131-134. Crovitz, H. F., Cordoni, C. N., Daniel, W. F., & Perlman, J. (1984). Everyday forgetting experiences: Real-time investigations with implications for the study of memory management in brain-damaged patients. Cortex, 20. 349-359. Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (1985). General s o c i a l  surveys, 1972-1985: Cumulative codebook. Codebook  for the machine-readable data f i l e general s o c i a l  surveys, 1972-1985. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (no date). The metamemory in adulthood (MIA) instrument. Unpublished manuscript. 232 Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1983a). Metamemory and memory for text relationships in adulthood: A cross-v a l i d a t i o n study. Journal of Gerontology, 38., 689-694. Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1983b). Structure and development of metamemory in adulthood. Journal of  Gerontology, 38, 682-688. Dobbs, A. R., & Rule, B. G. (1987). Prospective memory and self-reports of memory a b i l i t i e s i n older adults. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 209-222. Drew, G. C. (1940). An experimental study of mental fatigue. ( B r i t i s h A i r Ministry Flying Personnel Research Committee Paper No. 277). Re-printed 1979 i n Dearnaley, E. J. & Warr, P. J. (Eds.), Aircrew stress  in wartime operations (pp. 135-177). London: Academic Press. Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (1989). Implicit memory: Task or process? In S. Lewandowsky, J. C. Dunn, & K. Kirsner (Eds.), Implicit memory. Theoretical issues (pp. 17-31). H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental  Psychology: Learning. Memory and Cognition. 16, 717-726. E l l i s , J . A. (1988). Memory for future intentions: Investigating pulses and steps. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects  of memory: Current research and issues. Vol. 1.  Memory in everyday l i f e (pp. 371-376). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Erber, J . T. (1989). Young and older adults' appraisal of memory f a i l u r e s i n young and older adult target persons. Journal of Gerontology. 44., P170-P175. Erber, J . T., Szuchman, L. T., & Rothberg, S. T. (1990). Everyday memory f a i l u r e : Age differences in appraisal and a t t r i b u t i o n . Psychology and Aging, 5, 236-241. Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Depth, elaboration, and distinctiveness. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 89-118). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 233 Goldberg, L. R. (1977, August). Language and  personality: Developing a taxonomy of t r a i t  d escriptive terms. Invited address to the Division of Evaluation and Measurement at the 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Imp l i c i t and e x p l i c i t memory for new associations i n normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental  Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 11, 501-518. Harris, J . E. (1978). External memory aids. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory (pp. 172-179). London: Academic Press. Harris, J. E. (1980). Memory aids people use: Two interview studies. Memory and Cognition, 8, 31-38. Harris, J. E. (1984). Remembering to do things: A forgotten topic. In J. E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions and absent- mindedness (pp. 71-92). London: Academic Press. Harris, J. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (1982). Remembering to do things: A theoreti c a l framework and an i l l u s t r a t i v e experiment. Human Learning. 1, 123-136. Herrmann, D. J . (1982). Know thy memory: The use of questionnaires to assess and study memory. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 92., 434-452. Herrmann, D. J . (1984). Questionnaires about memory. In J . E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday  memory, actions and absent-mindedness (pp. 133-151). London: Academic Press. Herrmann, D. J . , & Neisser, U. (1978) An inventory of everyday memory experiences. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of  memory (pp.35-51). London: Academic Press. Hulicka, I. M. (1982). Memory functioning in late adulthood. In F.I. M. Craik & S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes (pp. 331-351). New York: Plenum. Hultsch, D. F., Dixon, R. A., & Hertzog, C. (1985). Memory perceptions and memory performance i n 234 adulthood and aging. Canadian Journal on Aging, 4(4), 179-187. Jackson, J . L., Bogers, H., & Kerstholt, J . (1988). Do memory aids aid the elderly i n t h e i r day to day remembering? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N . Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory;  Current research and issues. Vol. 2. C l i n i c a l and  educational implications (pp. 137-142). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Jacoby, L. L., & Craik, F. I. M. (1979). E f f e c t s of elaboration of processing at encoding and r e t r i e v a l : Trace distinctiveness and recovery of i n i t i a l context. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 1-21). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kausler, D. H. (1985). Episodic memory: Memorizing performance. In N. Charness (Ed.), Aging and human  performance (pp.101-141). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons. Kausler, D. H., & Hakami, M. K. (1983) Memory for a c t i v i t i e s : Adult age differences and i n t e n t i o n a l i t y . Developmental Psychology, 19, 889-894 . Kausler, D. H., Lichty, W., & Freund, J . S. (1985) Adult age differences in recognition memory and frequency judgments for planned versus performed a c t i v i t i e s . Developmental Psychology, 21. 647-654. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures  for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA.: Brooks/Cole. Koriat, A., & Ben-Zur, H. (1988). Remembering that I did i t : Processes and d e f i c i t s i n output monitoring. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current  research and issues. Vol. 1 Memory in everyday l i f e (pp. 203-208). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H., & Sheffer, D. (1988). T e l l i n g the same story twice: Output monitoring and age. Journal of Memory and Language. 27., 23-39. Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & F l a v e l l , J . H. (1975). An interview study of children's knowledge about memory. Monographs of the Society for Research in  Child Development. 40, (1, S e r i a l No. 159) . 235 K v a v i l a s h v i l i , L. (1987) Remembering intention as a d i s t i n c t form of memory. B r i t i s h Journal of  Psychology, 78., 507-518. Lay, C. H. (1988). Procrastination and everyday memory. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current  research and issues. Vol. 1. Memory in everyday  l i f e (pp. 453-458). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Levy, R. L. (1977). Relationship of an overt commitment to task compliance in behavior therapy. Journal of  Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 8, 25-29. Levy, R. L., & Clark, H. (1980). The use of an overt commitment to enhance compliance: A cautionary note. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental  Psychiatry. 11, 105-107. Levy, R. L., & Loftus, G. R. (1984). Compliance and memory. In J. E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions and absent-mindedness (pp. 93-112). New York: Academic Press. Levy, R. L., Yamashita, D., & Pow, G. (1979). The relationship of an overt commitment to the frequency and speed of compliance with symptom reporting. Medical Care, 17(3), 281-284. Lezak, M. D. (1983) Neuropsychological assessment. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lidz, T. (1980). Phases of adult l i f e : An overview. In W. H. Norman & T. J. Scaramella (Eds.), M i d - l i f e  Developmental and c l i n i c a l issues (pp. 20-37). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Loftus, E. F. (1971). Memory for intentions: The ef f e c t of presence of a cue and interpolated a c t i v i t y . Psychonomic Science, 23.(4), 315-316. Martin, M., & Jones, G. V. (1984). Cognitive f a i l u r e s in everyday l i f e . In J. E. Harris, & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions and absent- mindedness (pp. 173-190). London: Academic Press. Mateer, C., & Sohlberg, M. M. (1988) A paradigm s h i f t i n memory r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . In H. A. Whitaker (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies of nonfocal brain damage (pp. 202-225). New York: Springer-Verlag. 236 Mateer, C., Sohlberg, M. M., & Crinean, J . (1987). Perceptions of memory function i n individuals with closed head injury. Journal of Head Trauma  Rehabilitation , 2, 74-84. Meacham, J . A. (1982). A note on remembering to execute planned actions. Journal of Applied Developmental  Psychology. 3, 121-133. Meacham, J . A. (1988). Interpersonal relations and prospective remembering. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E . Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of  memory: Current research and issues. Vol. 1.  Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 354-359). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Meacham, J . A., & Colombo, J . A. (1980). External r e t r i e v a l cues f a c i l i t a t e prospective remembering in children. Journal of Educational Research, 73., 299-301. Meacham, J. A., & Dumitru, J. (1976). Prospective remembering and external r e t r i e v a l cues. JSAS  Catalog of Selected Documents i n Psychology. 6, (65, Ms. No. 1284). Meacham, J. A., & Kushner, S. (1980). Anxiety, prospective remembering, and performance of planned actions. Journal of General Psychology, 103, 203-209. Meacham, J . A., & Leiman, B. (1982). Remembering to perform future actions. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Memory  observed: Remembering in natural contexts (pp.3 27-336). San Francisco: Freeman & Co. Meacham, J . A., & Singer, J. (1977). Incentive effects in prospective remembering. Journal of Psychology, 97, 191-197. M i l l e r , G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Moffat, N. (1984) Strategies of memory therapy. In B. A. Wilson & N. Moffat (Eds.), C l i n i c a l management of  memory problems (pp. 63-88). Rockville, MD.: Aspen. Morris, P. E. (1979). Strategies for learning and r e c a l l . In M.M. Gruneberg & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Applied problems in learning and memory (pp. 25-57) . New York: Academic Press. 237 Morris, P. E. (1984). The v a l i d i t y of subjective reports on memory. In J . E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions and absent- mindedness (pp. 153-172). London: Academic Press. Moscovitch, M. (1982). A neuropsychological approach to perception and memory i n normal and pathological aging. In F. I. M. Craik & S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging  and cognitive processes (pp. 55-78). New York: Plenum Press. Munsat, S. (1966). The concept of memory. New York: Random House. Neisser, U. (1982). Memory observed: Remembering in  natural contexts. San Francisco: Freeman & Co. Orne, M. T. (1970). Hypnosis, motivation and the ecological v a l i d i t y of the psychological experiment. In W. J. Arnold & M. M. Page, Nebraska symposium on  motivation. Vol. 18. Current theory and research in  motivation (pp. 187-265). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Perlmutter, M. (1978). What i s memory aging the aging of? Developmental Psychology. 14, 330-345. Reason, J. T. (1979). Actions not as planned: The price of automatization. In G. Underwood & R. Stevens (Eds.), Aspects of consciousness. Vol. 1:  Psychological Issues (pp. 67-89). New York: Academic Press. Reason, J. T. (1984) Absent-mindedness and cognitive control. In J. E. Harris & P.E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions and absent-mindedness. London: Academic Press. Reason, J. T., & Mycielska, K. (1982). Absent-minded?  The psychology of mental lapses and everyday memory. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice H a l l . R i t t e r , K. (1978). The development of knowledge of an external r e t r i e v a l cue strategy. Child Development. 49, 1227-1230. Rogers, D. (1982) The adult years. An introduction to aging (2nd ed.). Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-H a l l . Schacter, D. L., Rich, S., & Stampp, A. (1985) Remediation of memory disorders: Experimental 238 evaluation of the spaced-retrieval technique. Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 79-96. Schaie, K. W., & W i l l i s , S. L. (1986). Adult development and aging (2nd ed.). London, England: Scott, Foresman & Co. Searleman, A. & Gaydusek, K. A. (1989, November). Relationship between prospective memory a b i l i t y and  select i v e personality variables. Paper presented at the 30th Annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Atlanta, Georgia. Sinnott, J. (1986b). Everyday memory: with egual practice does age influence forgetting in a two year  period? Paper presented at the meeting of the Gerontological Society, Chicago. Sinnott, J. (1989b) General systems theory: A rationale for the study of everyday memory. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday  cognition in adulthood and la t e l i f e (pp. 59-70). New Rochelle, N. Y.: Cambridge University Press. Sinnott, J. (1986a). Prospective/intentional and incidental everyday memory: Effects of age and passage of time. Psychology and Aging, 1(2), 110-116. Sinnott, J. (1989a). Prospective/intentional memory and aging: Memory as adaptive action. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everday cognition i n  adulthood and la t e l i f e (pp. 352-369). New Rochelle, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Sohlberg, M. M., & Mateer, C. A. (1987) Effectiveness of an attention t r a i n i n g program. Journal of  C l i n i c a l and Experimental Neuropsychology, 9, 117-130. Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984). Assessing everyday memory a f t e r severe head injury. In J . E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday  memory, actions and absent-mindedness (pp. 191-206). London: Academic Press. Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Gleave, J. (1984). Memory f a i l u r e s in everyday l i f e following severe head injury. Journal of C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 6 (2), 127-142. Sunderland, A., Watts, K., Baddeley, A. D., & Harris, J . E. (1986) Subjective memory assessment and tes t performance in elde r l y adults. Journal of  Gerontology, 41, 376-384. Weiford, A. T. (1958). Aging and human s k i l l . London: Oxford University Press. West, R. L. (1984, August). An analysis of prospective  everyday memory. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto. West, R. L. (1986). Everyday memory and aging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 2(4), 323-344. West, R. L. (1988) Prospective memory and aging. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current research and  issues. Vol. 2. C l i n i c a l and educational  implications (pp. 119-125). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Wilkins, A. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (1978). Remembering to r e c a l l in everyday l i f e : An approach to absent-mindedness. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N.Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory (pp. 27-33). London: Academic Press. Wilson, B. A. (1981). Teaching a patient to remember people's names after removal of a l e f t temporal tumor. Behavioral Psychotherapy. 9, 338-344. Wilson, B. A. (1982). Success and f a i l u r e in memory tr a i n i n g following a cerebral vascular accident. Cortex. 18, 581-594. Wilson, B. A., Cockburn, J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hiorns, R. (1989). The development and va l i d a t i o n of a tes t battery for detecting and monitoring everyday memory problems. Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental  Neuropsychology. 11. 855-870. Winograd, E. (1988). Some observations on prospective remembering. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory:  Current research and issues. Vol. 1. Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 348-353) . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Z e l i n s k i , E. M., Gilewski, M. J . , & Thompson, L. W. (1980). Do laboratory tests r e l a t e to self-assessment of memory a b i l i t y in the young and old? In L. W. Poon, J. L. Fozard, L. S. Cermak, D. Arenberg, & L. 240 W. Thompson (Eds.), New directions i n memory and  aging: Proceedings of the George A. Talland Memorial  Conference (pp. 519-544). H i l l s i d e , New Jersey: Erlbaum. 241 APPENDIX A Memory Diary (Study 1) I-. What was the event you forgot? When did you remember about i t (re l a t i v e to when you should have done i t ? Approximately when during the day did you remember about i t ? . _ Had you made any attempt (either with an external aid such as a note or an appointment book, or with an internal aid such as rehearsing the information or "making a note of i t " ) to remember to do the event? If so, what? . On a 4 point scale, please rate how important t h i s event was for you. 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important On a 4 point scale, please rate how important general events of t h i s kind are for you. 1 2. 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important On a 7 point scale, please rate how pleasant t h i s event was for you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very mod. s l i g h t . neut. s l i g h t , mod. very unplea. unplea. unplea. plea. plea plea. On a 7 point scale, please rate how pleasant general events of t h i s kind are for you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very mod. s l i g h t , neut. s l i g h t , mod. very unplea. unplea. unplea. plea. plea plea. 242 9. How would you categorize t h i s event? a) something you do on a regular basis b) something you said you would do or planned to do c) something you planned to take with you d) something you intended to t e l l someone e) other (please specify) 10. Is there some reason you may have forgotten t h i s event? If yes, please specify. 11. Any other comments? 243 APPENDIX B Memory Questionnaire (Study 2) For each of the following questions, please indicate (by c i r c l i n g either "yes" or "no") whether you have forgotten to do the item l i s t e d . If you have forgotten to do the item, please indicate how often you have forgotten i t , and how important the item was for you. 1. Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten to do something you do on a regular basis, such as: a) brush or comb your hair? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important b) brush your teeth? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important c) put on or take off jewelry (e.g. watch, ring, earrings, necklace)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important d) take medication? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 244 e)other (please specify) frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 2. Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten to do something you said you would do or planned to do such as: a) take something out of the oven or o f f the stove? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important b) turn something on (e.g. a kettle, pot, the oven)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately . very important important important important c) a breakfast, lunch, dinner or coffee engagement? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important d) a doctor or dentist appointment? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important e) an appointment with another professional ( i f yes, please specify)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 245 f) an appointment with a nonprofessional? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important g) return books to the l i b r a r y ? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important h) return notes or other objects to another individual? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important i) return videos to a video store? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important j)buy a p a r t i c u l a r object or substance? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 . 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important k)go somewhere (e.g. a store, gas station, l i b r a r y ) ? frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 246 l)make a phone c a l l ? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important m)make an appointment? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important n)reply to a l e t t e r ? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6^ 8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important o)pay a b i l l (e.g. rent, phone, hydro, visa)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important p)other (please specify) .  frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 3. Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten to take something with you or l e f t something behind such as: a)an umbrella? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 247 b) r a i n gear (other than an umbrella)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important. important c) l i b r a r y books? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important d) books, pen, pencil or eraser for class? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important e) keys? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important f) directions, map or address for an unfamiliar place? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important g) other (please specify) frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 248 4. Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten something you planned to t e l l someone such as: a) a phone message? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important b) a verbal message? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important c)information regarding a nonsocial topic or s i t u a t i o n (e.g. class a c t i v i t y , newspaper a r t i c l e , weather report, funny story, joke)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important d) information regarding a s o c i a l event (e.g. concert, party, movie)? Yes No frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y . moderately very important important important important e) other (please specify) • '  frequency (number of times): 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not at a l l s l i g h t l y moderately very important important important important 249 5. Is there anything else you forgot about during the past week which i s not l i s t e d above and which would not f a l l into any of the categories given above? I f yes, please l i s t the things you forgot below: 6a). Do you normally keep an appointment diary, write notes to yourself or use some other form of external memory aid (such as asking others to remind you to do something)? Yes No 6b). If yes, which method(s) do you use? appointment diary written notes . asking others to remind you other methods (please specify) 7a). Do you normally t r y to use some form of inter n a l memory aid (such as rehearsing the information, or making "a mental note of i t " ) ? Yes No 7b) . If yes, which method (s) do you use? ' 8a). Did you forget anything within the l a s t week which you had t r i e d to remember using some form of memory aid (either internal or external)? Yes No 8b). If yes, which type of memory aid had you used? 9. Please provide your age: 10. Please indicate your sex: Male Female 250 APPENDIX C Memory Questionnaire (Study 3) The Memory Questionnaire o r i g i n a l l y contained 122 items. I t was shortened to a 50-item questionnaire using the following procedures (cf. Dixon & Hultsch, 1983b; unpublished manuscript, no date). Fif t e e n undergraduate students (mean age = 25.6) taking summer courses as UBC served as participants. Each of the 122 statements was typed on a 10.2 cm X 15.2 cm (4" X 6") white index card. Definitions of six categories (labeled Knowledge, Change, Strategies, Achievement and Motivation, Prospective Memory and Unclassifiable) were typed on similar sized index cards. The d e f i n i t i o n s of the Knowledge, Change, Strategies, and Achievement and Motivation categories were adapted from Dixon and Hultsch (1983b; unpublished manuscript, no date). The students were asked to sort the items one at a time into one and only one of these six categories. They were asked to use the "Uncl a s s i f i a b l e " category only i f they f e l t the item did not f i t into any of the other categories. They were also t o l d they could provide written comments j u s t i f y i n g t h e i r choices and they were asked to note any d i f f i c u l t i e s they had in c l a s s i f y i n g the statements. It was emphasized that each statement was to be c l a s s i f i e d without regard to how well the individual f e l t the statement applied 251 to him or her. This procedure took approximately 1 hour to complete and the students were paid $4.00 for t h e i r time. Once the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n phase was completed, the 10 statements that had been c l a s s i f i e d most consistently i n a l l of the categories except "Unclassifiable" were then used to construct the f i n a l questionnaire, (calle d the Memory Questionnaire). Unfortunately, using t h i s procedure, the Prospective Memory category did not contain 10 items. (Several participants noted they had d i f f i c u l t y with the Knowledge and Prospective Memory categories). In order to obtain 10 items for the Prospective Memory category, the most consistently rated prospective memory items i n each of the other four categories were used. These items were subsequently eliminated as potential items for the other categories. Most of the additional items used for the Prospective Memory category were chosen from the Knowledge category.. This, procedure was followed for several reasons. F i r s t , 50 items was considered to be a reasonable number of items for the questionnaire. Second, i t was f e l t that an equal number of items should be used for each of the categories. Third, and perhaps most importantly, i t was f e l t that asking participants to rate how well a p a r t i c u l a r item f e l l into a s p e c i f i c category was quite d i f f e r e n t from asking them how well that p a r t i c u l a r item applied to them (as was done in the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n phase described above). 252 Items in the Knowledge, Change, Strategies, and Achievement and Motivation categories were c l a s s i f i e d i n the same category by at lea s t 11 of the 15 participants (73% to 100% agreement). Items i n the Prospective Memory category were c l a s s i f i e d by between 5 and 8 of the 15 par t i c i p a n t s (33% to 53% agreement). The f i n a l version of the Memory Questionnaire i s presented below in a form similar to that administered to participants, with two exceptions. F i r s t , beside each item in parentheses i s the memory dimension the item was designed to assess, followed by a slash (/) and an indicati o n of the dimension the item did assess, based on the outcome of the factor analysis. The five scales are abbreviated as follows: P = Prospective Memory, A = Achievement and motivation, C = Change over time, S = Use of strategies, and K = Knowledge of one's own memory (which was changed to E = Evaluation of one's own memory, afte r the factor analysis was conducted; see Study 3) . Questions that were deleted from further analysis are denoted by D; those that did not load on any of the factors but that were necessary in order to obtain a clean solution are denoted by N (for further explanation of these l a t t e r two designations, see Study 3). Second, the scoring d i r e c t i o n i s indicated by an asterisk (*). An asterisk next to a response indicates that response i s scored 5, the next response i s scored 4, etc. For example, i f the asterisk i s next to the a response, a i s 253 scored 5, b i s scored 4, c i s scored 3, d i s scored 2, and e i s scored 1. S i m i l a r l y , an asterisk next to the e response indicates that e i s scored 5, d i s scored 4, and so on. This information did not appear when the questionnaire was administered (cf. Dixon & Hultsch, unpublished manuscript, no date). 254 MEMORY QUESTIONNAIRE People use t h e i r memory in d i f f e r e n t ways in t h e i r everyday l i v e s . For example, some people write notes to themselves, others do not. This questionnaire i s concerned with how you use your memory and how you f e e l about i t . Some of the questions ask your opinion about memory. For example, My memory w i l l get better as I get older. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly Other questions ask how often you do cer t a i n things which may be related to your memory. For example, I often write myself reminder notes. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. Please take your time and answer each of the questions to the best of your a b i l i t y . Each question i s followed by f i v e choices. Draw a c i r c l e around the l e t t e r of the choice which best applies to you. C i r c l e only one l e t t e r for each statement. You can choose any one of the answers. If you agree strongly with the statement you would c i r c l e a. If you disagree strongly with the statement you would c i r c l e e. Choices b and d represent less agreement or disagreement. Choice c gives you a middle choice, but don't use c unless you r e a l l y can't decide on any of the other choices. Remember: a) Answer every question, even i f i t doesn't seem to apply to you very well. b) Answer with the choice that best applies to you. Please do not mark something because i t seems l i k e the "right thing to say". 255 (K/E) 1. I am good at remembering the plots of sto r i e s and novels. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (A/A) 2. It i s important to work at sustaining my memory a b i l i t y . *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (P/E) 3. When I go out to run a few errands (and don't have them written down on a l i s t ) , I often forget to do at least one of them. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (C/C) 4. My memory for important events has improved over the l a s t 10 years. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (A/N) 5. I am not very motivated to remember new things I learn. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (C/C) 6. My memory w i l l get better as I get older. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly 256 (P/D) 7. I often forget what I have started to do. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (A/A) 8. It gives me great s a t i s f a c t i o n to remember something I thought I had forgotten. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (P/P) 9. I often forget to put the garbage out. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (C/C) 10. I think I w i l l forget things more e a s i l y as I get older. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (S/E) 11. I often write appointments on calendars to help me remember them. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (A/A) 12. I t i s important that I am accurate when remembering the names of people. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly 257 (S/S) 13. I consciously attempt to reconstruct the day's events i n order to remember something. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (P/P) 14. I often forget to pass on messages. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (K/E) 15. I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering t r i v i a . a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (C/D) 16. I am much worse at remembering t i t l e s of books, movies or plays than I was 10 years ago. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (K/E) 17. I often forget facts. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (P/P) 18. I rarely forget to keep an appointment. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (S/S) 19. I try to relate something I want to remember to something else hoping that t h i s w i l l increase the l i k e l i h o o d of my remembering l a t e r . *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly 258 (P/P) 20. I often forget to make important phone c a l l s . a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (P/P) 21. I often forget to keep appointments i f I don't write them down. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (P/P) 22. I rarely forget birthdays or anniversaries when I have intended to do something s p e c i a l . *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided . d. disagree e. disagree strongly (S/N) 23. I use notes or diary entries to remind me of things I have done or experienced some time ago. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (K/E) 24. I rarely have d i f f i c u l t y remembering things. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (C/C) 25. My memory w i l l get worse as I get older. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly 259 (A/A) 26. Having a good memory would be nice, b u t . i t i s not important. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (P/P) 27. I rarely forget to reply to l e t t e r s . *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (K/E) 28. I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering things l i k e recipes. . a. , agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (A/A) 29. I t i s important that I am accurate when remembering important dates. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (K/E) 30. I find i t more d i f f i c u l t to remember d e t a i l s than ge n e r a l i t i e s . a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (A/A) 31. It i s important to me to have a good memory. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly 260 (S/S) 32. I often use mental images or pictures i n t r y i n g to remember something. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (P/E) 33. I rarely forget to pick up something I had intended to buy, even when I don't take a shopping l i s t . *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (K/E) 34. I often forget who was with me at events I have attended. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (K/E) 35. I am not always sure where I have heard various rumors. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (A/A) 36. A good memory i s something of which to be proud. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (A/A) 37. I work hard at trying to improve my memory. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly 261 (S/S) 38. I often t r y to remember something by remembering some information about i t (e.g. I t r y to remember a name by determining what the f i r s t l e t t e r of the name i s ) . *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (S/N) 39. I often do something unusual (such as wearing my watch on the opposite arm) to remind myself to do something. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (C/C) 40. The older I get the harder i t i s to remember c l e a r l y . a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (C/C) 41. My memory has greatly improved in the l a s t 10 years. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (S/D) 42. I often write myself reminder notes. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (C/D) 43. I now forget many more appointments than I did 10 years ago. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly 262 (S/S) 44. I often think about the day's a c t i v i t i e s at the beginning of the day so I can remember what I am supposed to do. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (A/A) 45. I admire people who have good memories. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly (S/S) 46. When I try to remember people I have met, I associate names and faces. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided. d. disagree e. disagree strongly (C/C) 47. As people get older, they tend to forget where they put things more frequently. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (K/N) 48. I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering things that happened a few minutes ago. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly (C/D) 49. My memory has greatly declined in the l a s t 10 years. a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly 263 (K/E) 50. I am good at remembering names. *a. agree strongly b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly 264 APPENDIX D Memory Diary (Studies 4 and 5) Date: Day of the week: This diary i s meant to be a record of the unique events you have to do every day. For the purposes of t h i s study, a unique event i s : a) something you don't do everyday b) something which you have planned to do i n advance (rather than on the spur-of-the-moment) c) something which has important consequences for you. At the end of each day, please f i l l out one form for each unique event you had to do during the day. If you remembered to do t h i s event, please answer Questions 1 to 6. If you forgot to do t h i s event, please answer a l l the questions (that i s , Questions 1 to 12). I f you did not have a unique event to do on any p a r t i c u l a r day, please answer only Question 1. Please record the day of the week and the date that you started the diary at the top of t h i s page. As well, please record the date and time of each entry at the top of each page. Thank you for your time! Date: Time: 1. What was the unique event you had to do today? 2. How often do you do t h i s during the course of a week? 3. How important was t h i s event for you (note: imp.=important; unimp.=unimportant)? very mod. s l i g h t . neut s l i g h t mod. very imp. imp. imp. unimp. unimp. unimp. 4. How pleasant do you fi n d t h i s event (note: pls.=pleasant; unpls.=unpleasant)? very mod. s l i g h t . neut. s l i g h t . mod. very p i s . p i s . p i s . unpls. unpls. unpls. 5 . Did you remember t h i s event in time to do i t ? If yes, did you do i t ? 6. How would you categorize t h i s event? a) something you do on a regular basis b) something you said you would do or planned to do c) something you planned to take with you d) something you intended to t e l l someone e) other (please specify) Please answer Questions 7 to 12 only i f you forgot to do th i s event. 7. When did you remember about the event r e l a t i v e to when you should have done i t ? 8. Approximately what time during the day did you remember about i t ? 9. Did you make any attempt to remember to do t h i s event? If yes, what did you do? 10. Is there some reason you may have forgotten t h i s event? If yes, please specify. 11. Did you remember about the event on your own or did something or someone remind you about i t ? Please indicate what ( i f anything) reminded you. 12. Any additional comments? APPENDIX E Memory Questionnaire (Studies 4 and 5) MEMORY FAILURES QUESTIONNAIRE The attached questionnaire i s concerned with memory for things you may have planned to do, but which you may have forgotten to do. Note that the questionnaire i s concerned with things you may have forgotten to do within the past  week. Please f i l l the questionnaire out i n as much d e t a i l as possible. Questions 1 to 4 are concerned with d i f f e r e n t types of items you may have forgotten to do within the past week. Each of these questions contains several example items. For each item, please indicate (by c i r c l i n g either "yes" or "no") whether you have forgotten to do i t . If the item does not apply to you with respect to the l a s t week, please c i r c l e "NA" (not applicable). If you have forgotten to do the item, please indicate (by drawing a c i r c l e around the appropriate response) how often you have forgotten i t , how important the item was for you, and how pleasant you generally find t h i s type of event. The FREQUENCY scale ranges from 1-2 times per week to more than 10 times per week. The IMPORTANCE scale ranges from Not At A l l Important to Very Important. The PLEASANTNESS scale ranges from Very Pleasant to Very Unpleasant. For example, i f you had forgotten to take your medication 3 times t h i s week, i f you thought that taking your medication was very important, and i f you found taking i t s l i g h t l y unpleasant, you might respond to t h i s item as follows: (Within the l a s t week, did you forget to) take medication? *Yes No NA FREQUENCY: *b. d. a. c. 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: *d. b. a. c. not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important 267 PLEASANTNESS: d. *e. f. g. a. b. c. very pleasant moderately pleasant s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant You could of course, choose any one of the answers for any of the three scales. You do not need to make a response to any of the scales i f you did not forget the item, or i f the item does not apply to you. Question 5 asks you to write down other things which you may have forgotten to do within the l a s t week and which would not f a l l into any of the categories l i s t e d in Questions 1 to 4. Question 6 asks you i f you forgot anything you had t r i e d to remember. Please answer each of these questions i n as much d e t a i l as possible. Thank you for your time. 268 Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten to do something you do on at least a d a i l y basis, such as: a)brush or comb your hair? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d. e. f. g-not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important very pleasant moderately pleasant s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant b)clean your teeth? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 269 c)put on or take o f f jewelry (e.g. earrings, necklace)? watch, ring, Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d. e. f. g-d)take medication? not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important very pleasant moderately pleasant s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 270 e)lock the door? Yes No FREQUENCY: IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d. e. f. g -NA 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important very pleasant moderately pleasant s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant f)turn o ff l i g h t s , the stove or some other object? Yes FREQUENCY: IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: No NA a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 271 g)other (please specify) Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten to do something you said you would do or planned to do such as: a)take something out of the oven or off the stove? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant b)turn something on (e.g. a kettle, pot, the oven Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant c)a breakfast, lunch, dinner or coffee engagement Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant d)a doctor or dentist appointment? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant e)an appointment with another professional (e.g. a lawyer, chiropractor, accountant; i f yes, please specify)? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant f)an appointment with a nonprofessional (e.g. a frie n d or family member)? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g- very unpleasant g)return, give or lend objects to another individual? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g- very unpleasant h)return videos to a video store? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g- very unpleasant i)buy a p a r t i c u l a r object or substance? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g- very unpleasant 276 j)go somewhere (e.g. a store, gas station, l i b r a r y ) ? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant k)make a phone c a l l ? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. . very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant l)make an appointment? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant m)write or reply to a l e t t e r ? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant n)mail a l e t t e r , b i l l or parcel? Yes No FREQUENCY: a. b. c. d. e. IMPORTANCE: a. . b. c. d. PLEASANTNESS: a. b. c. d-e. f. g. o)pay a b i l l (e.g. Yes No FREQUENCY: a. b. c. d. e. IMPORTANCE: a. b. c. d. PLEASANTNESS: a. b. c. d. e. f. g-NA 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important very pleasant moderately pleasant s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant rent, phone, hydro, visa) NA 1^ 2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important very pleasant moderately pleasant s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant p)water your plants? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g- very unpleasant q)take out the garbage? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g- very unpleasant 280 r)other (please specify) Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten to take something with you or l e f t something behind such as: a)an umbrella or other rain gear? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant b)your wallet or purse? Yes FREQUENCY: IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: c)keys? Yes FREQUENCY: IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS No NA a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant No NA a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 282 d)directions, map or address for an unfamiliar place? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant e)other (please specify) Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important -d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 283 Within the l a s t week, have you forgotten something you planned to t e l l someone such as: a)a phone message? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant b)a verbal message? Yes FREQUENCY: No NA a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 284 c)information regarding a non-social topic or si t u a t i o n (e.g. a newspaper a r t i c l e , weather report, funny story, joke)? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant d)information regarding a s o c i a l event (e.g. concert, party, movie)? Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: PLEASANTNESS: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant 285 e)other (please specify) Yes No NA FREQUENCY: a. 1-2 times b. 3-5 times c. 6-8 times d. 8-10 times e. more than 10 times IMPORTANCE: a. not at a l l important b. s l i g h t l y important c. moderately important d. very important PLEASANTNESS: a. very pleasant b. moderately pleasant c. s l i g h t l y pleasant d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant Is there anything else you forgot about during the past week which i s not l i s t e d above and which would not f a l l into any of the categories given above? If yes, please l i s t the things you forgot below: 6a). Did you forget anything within the l a s t week which you had made some attempt to remember (for example, by writing the information down or by repeating i t to yourself)? Yes No 6b). I f yes, how had you t r i e d to remember the information? 7. Additional comments? 286 APPENDIX F Interview (Studies 4 and 5) INTERVIEW 1. What i s my name? (1 point for f i r s t name, 1 point for l a s t name) 2. What i s my supervisor's name? (1 point for l a s t name) 3. Why am I doing t h i s research? (1 point for a reference to my thesis, to everyday memory, or to memory in general) 4. I asked you to do a number of tasks over the course of t h i s study. Could you name as many of those tasks as you can remember? •  (1 point for each task) 5. What phone number did you have to c a l l ? (1 point for f i r s t three numbers, 1 point for l a s t four numbers) 6. Where did you send the questionnaires /what was the return address on your envelopes? (1 point for UBC, 1 point for Department of Psychology; 2075 Wesbrook Mall was also accepted as a correct response) 7. What day of the week did you s t a r t your diary (diaries)? (2 points i f correct according to notes and the diary, 1 point i f within one day) 8. When did you have to return your diary (diaries)? (1 point e i t h e r for the correct day or for a general time-frame consistent with the instructions, e.g. one week a f t e r I started i t ) 9. Name three unique events you had to do l a s t week and which you included in your diary. (1 point for each one included i n the diary) 287 10. Did you remember to do each of the unique events you just named? (1 point for each one correct according to the diary) 11. Name two things which you forgot to do l a s t week and which you included on the Memory Failures Questionnaire. (2 points i f didn't forget anything, 2 points i f only forgot one item, and mentions the correct item, otherwise 1 point for each correct item) (end of section that was used in Studies 4 and 5) 12. I asked you to do a number of things such as make phone c a l l s or mail things at spe c i f i e d times. How did you remember to do these things? 13. How often did you do your best to complete the tasks I asked you to do (e.g. lab tasks, making phone c a l l s , mailing things, writing in the diary): Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never 14. On average, what i s your weekly alcohol consumption? a) not at a l l b) 0-5 drinks per week c) 6-10 drinks per week djmore than 10 drinks per week 15. On average, how often do you use i l l i c i t drugs (e.g. marijuana) during a week? a) not at a l l b) 0-5 times per week c) 6-10 times per week . d)more than 10 times per week 16. How would you rate your overall memory a b i l i t y ? Very Good Average Poor Very Good Poor 17. How would you rate your overall health? Very Good Average Good Poor Very Poor 288 18. How would you rate your overall memory a b i l i t y now compared to what i t was 5 years ago? Much S l i g h t l y About S l i g h t l y Much Worse Worse the Same Better Better 19. How would you rate your overall health now compared to what i t was 5 years ago? Much S l i g h t l y About S l i g h t l y Much Worse Worse the Same Better Better 20. How would you rate your overall health compared to other people your age? Much S l i g h t l y About S l i g h t l y Much Worse Worse the Same Better Better 21. How would you rate your overall memory compared to other people your age? Much S l i g h t l y About S l i g h t l y Much Worse Worse the Same Better Better 22. How would you rate your overall eyesight compared to other people your age? Much S l i g h t l y About S l i g h t l y Much Worse Worse the Same Better Better 23. How would you rate your overall hearing compared to other people your age? Much S l i g h t l y About S l i g h t l y Much Worse Worse the Same Better Better 289 APPENDIX G Scoring for Modified Logical Memory Test (Study 5) The Babcock and Portland paragraphs, given i n Lezak (1983, p. 438) were used as s t i m u l i in the Modified Logical Memory task. They are reproduced here to f a c i l i t a t e comprehension of the scoring procedure described i n d e t a i l below. The slash (/) marks indicate idea units as given i n the o r i g i n a l paragraphs. The Babcock paragraph December 6 . / Last week/ a r i v e r / overflowed/ in a small town/ ten miles/ from Albany./ Water covered the streets/ and entered the houses./ Fourteen persons/ were drowned/ and 6 0 0 persons/ caught cold/ because of the dampness/ and cold weather./ In saving/ a boy/ who was caught/ under a bridge,/ a man/ cut his hands./ The Portland paragraph Two/semi-trailer trucks/ lay on t h e i r sides/ a f t e r a tornado/ blew/ a dozen trucks/ o f f the highway/ in West Sp r i n g f i e l d . / One person/ was k i l l e d / and 418 others/ were injured/ in the Wednesday storm/ which h i t an ai r p o r t / and a nearby r e s i d e n t i a l area./ The governor/ w i l l ask/ the President/ to declare/ the town/ a major disaster area./ Scoring As noted in the Method section of Study 5, par t i c i p a n t s ' r e c a l l attempts were taped and then transcribed. The transcripts were scored, with points being 290 awarded for remembering the g i s t of the each idea unit. Note that because the paragraphs were presented auditorally, c r e d i t i s given for a reasonable acoustic confusion. 291 Babcock paragraph Idea Unit Credit December 6 Last week A r i v e r overflowed In a small town Ten miles From Albany Water covered the streets And entered the houses 14 persons December 6, December, St. Nicholas Day, wintertime, before Christmas l a s t week, a week ago, a few days ago, within the l a s t week a ri v e r , a stream overflowed, flooded, flood in a small town, in a town, small town, v i l l a g e **No credi t for c i t y ten miles, near, outside of, close to, a few miles (kilometres) from Albany (Alberni), Albany (Alberni) water covered the streets (roads), the streets (roads) were covered, water flooded the streets (roads), water flowed over the streets (roads), the streets (roads) were flooded, the streets (roads) were under water (and) entered the houses (homes), flooded the houses (homes), went into the houses (homes) 14 persons (people), 40 persons (people), some people, people, a number of people, a small number of people, 292 Were drowned And 600 persons Caught cold Because of the dampness And cold weather. In saving A boy Who was caught several people, many people, any number of people between 10 and 18 (residents or individuals could be used instead of persons or people) were drowned, drowned, died, were k i l l e d , were victims, passed away 600 persons (people), 1600 persons (people), people, some people, a large number of people, many people, several hundred, any specified number between 4 00 and 800 (residents or individuals could be used instead of persons, people) caught cold, got colds, got sick, were sick (cold, i l l , c h i l l e d ) , became sick ( i l l , c h illed) because of (due to) the dampness (damp, wetness, weather, the wet), i t was damp (wet) cold weather (temperature), i t was cold, because of (due to) the cold (in) saving (helping, rescuing), trying to save a boy (child, small c h i l d , l i t t l e c h i l d , kid, small kid, l i t t l e kid, lad, tot, male, male child) who was caught (trapped, stuck), caught (trapped, stuck) under a bridge, a bridge, on a bridge a man (woman), someone, some person, a person, adult, male, i n d i v i d u a l , townsperson, resident **No cr e d i t for lady, g i r l , female cut his hands (fingers, arms), hurt his hands (fingers, arms), injured his hands (fingers, arms), hurt himself, cut himself, was injured, was hurt, damaged his hands (fingers, arms) 294 Portland paragraph Idea Unit Credit Two Semi-trailer trucks Lay on t h e i r sides After a tornado two, a couple semi-trailer trucks, trucks, semi-trailers, large trucks, t r a i l e r trucks, semis, semi-trucks, tractor trucks, tractor t r a i l e r trucks lay on t h e i r sides, were on t h e i r sides, lay, on t h e i r sides, were overturned, tipped, tipped over (onto t h e i r sides), f e l l over (onto the i r sides), were over, over after a tornado (hurricane, cyclone, storm), a tornado (hurricane, cyclone, storm, severe storm), due to a tornado (hurricane, cyclone, storm, severe storm) (whirlwind in place of other terms) Blew A dozen trucks Off the highway blew, blown, h i t , swept through a dozen trucks ( t r a i l e r s , semi-trailers, other truck names), twelve trucks (semi-trailers, other truck names), several more, several trucks (other truck names), quite a few off the highway (road), from the highway (road), the highway (road), 295 In West S p r i n g f i e l d One person Was k i l l e d And 418 others Were injured In the Wednesday storm Which h i t an air p o r t And a nearby r e s i d e n t i a l area The governor in West Sprin g f i e l d , western Spri n g f i e l d , in the western part of (Springfield), Springfield, Spring **No cr e d i t for west something, Spring something, S p r i n g h i l l , Springwood one person, someone, a person, an in d i v i d u a l , a resident was k i l l e d , died, passed away 418 people (others, persons), 480 people (others, persons), a large number, several, several hundred, over 400, 408 people (others, persons), any number in 4 00s, any hundreds number ending in 18 were injured (hurt, wounded), suffered in the Wednesday storm, i t happened Wednesday, in the middle of the week which h i t an airport, i t h i t an airport, an airport was affected, and a nearby r e s i d e n t i a l area, a r e s i d e n t i a l area, a (nearby, close by) community, homes were affected, h i t homes nearby, h i t a nearby r e s i d e n t i a l area the governor (of the state) 296 W i l l ask The President to declare The town A major disaster area w i l l ask (request), (has) asked (requested), i s going to ask (request) the President to declare ( c a l l ) , . declared (called, said), w i l l declare ( c a l l ) , has declared (called, said) the town, i t , the area, the surrounding area, the community, the v i l l a g e a major disaster area, a (large) disaster area, a disaster s i t e (zone), an emergency area (site) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100329/manifest

Comment

Related Items