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 U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1980 M. A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1990 ©Jo  Ann M i l l e r ,  1990  In  presenting  degree freely  this  thesis  in  at the University  partial  fulfilment  of British  Columbia,  available for reference  copying  of this  department publication  or  thesis by  of this  and study.  for scholarly  his  or  thesis  her  Department  of  Psychology  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  August 22,  Columbia  1990  I further  purposes  the requirements  I agree agree  that that  gain shall  It  is  for an  advanced  the Library shall permission  may be granted  representatives.  for financial  permission.  of  not be allowed  it  for extensive  by the head  understood  make  that without  of my  copying  or  my written  Abstract Prospective an  memory r e f e r s to remembering  intended  o r planned  a c t i o n , such  appointment  or t e l l i n g  a friend  Despite has  as keeping  about  little  empirical  a  an upcoming  i t s importance i n everyday l i f e ,  received  t o c a r r y out doctor's party.  p r o s p e c t i v e memory  or t h e o r e t i c a l  Rather, much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e has focused  attention.  on r e t r o s p e c t i v e  memory, t h a t i s , memory f o r information l e a r n t i n t h e past. The  current  l i t e r a t u r e on p r o s p e c t i v e memory addresses  f i v e aspects t h a t a r e necessary action.  f o r c a r r y i n g out an intended  These a r e (a) formulating the p l a n ;  knowledge necessary  t o c a r r y out the p l a n ;  (b) having the (c) remembering  the p l a n a t the a p p r o p r i a t e time; (d) c a r r y i n g out t h e p l a n ; and  (e) remembering t h a t the plan has been performed.  The  l i t e r a t u r e a l s o r a i s e s three fundamental q u e s t i o n s .  Namely,  whether  involve  prospective  different  processes,  and  retrospective  whether  measures of p r o s p e c t i v e  memory  self-report  and  behavioral  memory are c o r r e l a t e d , and whether  p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance v a r i e s as a f u n c t i o n of age. These  questions  presented The memory  were the focus  in this first  diary,  studies  dissertation.  three a  of the e x p l o r a t o r y  studies  memory  questionnaire,  questionnaire, r e s p e c t i v e l y . the f o u r t h and f i f t h  involved the development of a  studies.  and  These instruments  a  metamemory  were used i n  Studies 4 and 5 a l s o i n c l u d e d  behavioral  measures  of  prospective  memory  and  objective  measures o f r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory. The f o u r t h study examined how community-dwelling feel  about,  and use, t h e i r  memory  accordance with p r e v i o u s research, observed  on the b e h a v i o r a l  Moreover, differ  performance  as a  function  on a d a i l y  adults  basis.  In  no age d i f f e r e n c e s  were  measures  of p r o s p e c t i v e  memory.  on t h e s e l f - r e p o r t measures  d i d not  of age.  As hypothesized,  age was  c o r r e l a t e d with performance on a r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory task. The  fifth  study  involved  an extension  and r e p l i c a t i o n  of Study 4, with the major a d d i t i o n being the use o f s e v e r a l standard  laboratory  T h i s study revealed contrast  to  retrospective  not  memory  memory t a s k s as  a  studies,  tasks  was  memory t a s k s .  and b e h a v i o r a l  correlated.  t o assess  retrospective  several interesting findings.  previous  some p r o s p e c t i v e report  tests  measures  Third,  of  age,  on  Second, by and l a r g e , of p r o s p e c t i v e  performance  although  on  memory  the  on  selfwere  prospective d i d not vary  performance ' on  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks was c l e a r l y age r e l a t e d . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s research  some  t o performance  (both s e l f - r e p o r t and behavioral)  function  First, in  performance  related  memory.  are d i s c u s s e d .  the  iv Table of Contents Abstract  i i  L i s t of Tables  xi  Acknowledgements  xiii  Introduction  1  S u c c e s s f u l completion of p r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks Making t h e p l a n  .  2 4  Time frame  5  Task r e g u l a r i t y  8  Time i n t e r v a l  9  Knowledge f o r c a r r y i n g out the p l a n Remembering t h e plan  11 12  Time monitoring  13  Use o f memory aids  14  C a r r y i n g out the plan Fatigue. . . .  . .. 16 17  Procrastination  18  Motivation  19  Incentive  19  Commitment  21  Knowing the p l a n has been completed  23  Summary  25  Fundamental questions..  50  Are p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory d i f f e r e n t ? . . 52 Everyday l i f e  52  E m p i r i c a l research  53  V  Theories  55  Do s e l f - r e p o r t and o b j e c t i v e measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory c o r r e l a t e ?  59  Do young and e l d e r l y i n d i v i d u a l s 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 t o p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s ?  64  Summary  70  Overview of t h e present r e s e a r c h  72  Study 1  73  Study 2  74  Study 3  74  S t u d i e s 4 and 5  77  Study 1.-.  80  Method  80  Participants  80  M a t e r i a l s and Procedure  80  R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n  83  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the memory f a i l u r e s .  84  Measures r e l a t i n g t o time  86  Importance and pleasantness r a t i n g s  87  Use o f memory a i d s Explanations Summary Study 2 Method  f o r f o r g e t t i n g and remembering  .. . 89 90 91 93 93  Participants  93  Materials  93  vi Procedure  95  Predictions  96  Results  96  Number o f memory f a i l u r e s . .  97  Types o f responses  98  Frequency data  99  Importance r a t i n g s  99  Use o f memory a i d s  99  Discussion  101  Study 3  105  Method  105  Participants  105  M a t e r i a l s and Procedure  106  Results Structure  109 and r e l i a b i l i t y  of the Memory  Questionnaire  109  Performance  115  as a f u n c t i o n of age  Discussion Study 4 Method  119 123 12 3  Participants  123  Materials  124  S e l f - r e p o r t measures  124  B e h a v i o r a l measures  127  Procedure.  127  Summary and p r e d i c t i o n s  13 0  vii Scoring  .  S e l f - r e p o r t measures  13 3 133  Memory d i a r y  133  Memory F a i l u r e s Questionnaire  133  Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  133  B e h a v i o r a l measures  134  Return m a t e r i a l s  134  Make phone c a l l s . . . .  135  Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d  135  Follow-up i n t e r v i e w Results  136 136  Co-operation  136  S e l f - r e p o r t measures  137  Memory d i a r y  137  Memory F a i l u r e s Questionnaire  141  Memory Questionnaire  141  B e h a v i o r a l measures  142  Return m a t e r i a l s . .  142  Make phone c a l l s  142  Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d  147  Comparisons between the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory..  149  Follow-up i n t e r v i e w  154  Discussion  155  P r o s p e c t i v e memory  155  R e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  158  viii Study 5 Method  160 160  Participants  160  Materials  161  S e l f - r e p o r t measures  161  B e h a v i o r a l measures  161  Laboratory t a s k s  161  Procedure  164  Session 1  165  Session 2  169  Summary and p r e d i c t i o n s Scoring S e l f - r e p o r t measures  170 172 172  Memory d i a r y  172  Memory F a i l u r e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  173  Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  173  B e h a v i o r a l measures  173  Return m a t e r i a l s  173  Make phone c a l l s  173  Keep appointments  174  Complete t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d  174  Laboratory t a s k s  17 5  M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory  175  S e r i a l D i g i t Learning...  176  Buschke Cued R e c a l l  176  Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s  176  ix Names and Faces  177  Follow-up i n t e r v i e w  177  Results  177  Co-operation  177  S e i f - r e p o r t measures  178  Memory d i a r y  178  Memory F a i l u r e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  179  Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  182  B e h a v i o r a l measures  186  Return t h i n g s  186  Make phone c a l l s  187  Keep appointments  187  Complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d  188  Comparisons between the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures  189  Laboratory tasks  195  Follow-up i n t e r v i e w  201  C o r r e l a t i o n s between the l a b o r a t o r y tasks and the interview  201  C o r r e l a t i o n s between the p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures Discussion. .  202 206  P r o s p e c t i v e memory measures  209  R e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures  212  P r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures  213  General D i s c u s s i o n  216  X  D i f f e r e n t types of tasks, d i f f e r e n t types o f processes  216  F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g p r o s p e c t i v e memory.  218  Abilities  i n v o l v e d i n remembering an i n t e n t i o n  The r o l e o f non-cognitive  factors  219 221  I n t e n t i o n s versus plans  225  C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o other areas  226  P r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of p r o s p e c t i v e memory research  227  References  230  Appendix A.  Memory Diary  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  Appendix F.  Interview  Appendix G.  S c o r i n g f o r M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory T e s t (Study  5)  (Study  1)  240  (Studies 4 and 5)  (Studies 4 and 5)  265 285  287  xi L i s t of Tables Table  1  A summary o f the p r o s p e c t i v e memory literature  Table  2  R e l i a b i l i t y of the f i v e s c a l e s on the Memory Questionnaire  Table  3  4  113  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the f i v e s c a l e s on the Memory Questionnaire. . .  Table  26  114  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s ( i n parentheses) f o r s c o r e s on the Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r each age group  Table  5  117  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s ( i n parentheses) f o r s c o r e s on the memory d i a r y , the MFQ, the b e h a v i o r a l measures, and the follow-up i n t e r v i e w f o r each age group  Table  6  138  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s ( i n parentheses) f o r s c o r e s on the MQ f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r each age group  Table  7  C o r r e l a t i o n s between the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Table  8  14 3  151  C o r r e l a t i o n s between s c a l e s on the MQ and the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Table  9  152  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s ( i n parentheses) f o r the memory d i a r y , the MFQ and the b e h a v i o r a l measures f o r each age group  180  xii Table 10  Means and standard  deviations  ( i n parentheses)  f o r each s c a l e on the MQ f o r each age group....183 Table 11  C o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Table 12  191  C o r r e l a t i o n s between s c a l e s on the MQ and the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Table 13  Means and standard  193 deviations  ( i n parentheses)  f o r each o f the l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s and the f o l l o w up i n t e r v i e w Table 14  f o r each age group  196  C o r r e l a t i o n s between age and the l a b o r a t o r y tasks  T a b l e 15  198  R e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs i n v o l v i n g age groups and the l a b o r a t o r y tasks  Table 16  C o r r e l a t i o n s between the follow-up  199 interview  and the l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s Table 17  C o r r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i o u s  2 03 prospective  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e t a s k s . . . . . Table 18  Canonical  2 04  c o r r e l a t i o n r e s u l t s of p r o s p e c t i v e  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e measures  207  xiii Acknowledgements I c o u l d not have completed t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n without the support o f a number o f agencies and i n d i v i d u a l s . Funding was provided i n p a r t by a G r a n t - i n - A i d of Research from Sigma X i , The S c i e n t i f i c Research S o c i e t y . The a s s i s t a n c e o f s e v e r a l community o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. I would e s p e c i a l l y l i k e t o thank Mr. Harry Rumley and the Vancouver Board o f Parks and R e c r e a t i o n . To t h e members o f my committee, Ray Corteen, E r i c E i c h , Michael Chapman and Bob Hare, and my " e x t e r n a l examiner" a t a l l stages, J e n n i f e r Campbell, I extend my a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r your i n t e r e s t i n an area i n which so l i t t l e i s known. I would a l s o l i k e t o thank a l l those i n d i v i d u a l s who v o l u n t e e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n v a r i o u s phases of the p r o j e c t ; without them t h e r e s e a r c h would not have been p o s s i b l e . I am g r a t e f u l t o Katey Connaghan f o r v o l u n t e e r i n g t o score much o f the data i n Study 3 and t o Lindsay Mullen f o r her i n v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Studies 4 and 5. I a l s o deeply a p p r e c i a t e the moral and e d i t o r i a l support g i v e n by Robin Hunter. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e t o thank my f a m i l y and C r a i g f o r 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 desk  rather  than  business c a l l greeting  planned  put  into  a  i s l e f t on a  briefcase.  An  important  i s remembered a f t e r the o f f i c e has c l o s e d .  card  anniversary.  t o lend t o a c o l l e a g u e  i s found  i n a coat  pocket  A  a week a f t e r the  One may r a r e l y f o r g e t t o c a r r y out intended o r  activities  such  as  these,  but when  such  memory  f a i l u r e s do occur they may have important consequences.  At  the  or  very  least,  they  can be  embarrassing,  annoying  frustrating. Remembering t o c a r r y out an intended has  been termed p r o s p e c t i v e  197 6).  Despite  everyday  t h e importance  life,  theoretical  i t  on  types  studies  (e.g. Meacham & Dumitru,  of p r o s p e c t i v e  received  little  memory  empirical  has  focused  Instead,  or  on  what  was  ( r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory).  o f memory has i n v o l v e d  diverse  much of the learned  The study o f  approaches.  In  o f r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory, p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e g e n e r a l l y  given e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r e c a l l or i d e n t i f y learned  memory i n  (For a summary o f t h e p r o s p e c t i v e  see Table 1 below).  sometime i n the past both  has  attention.  memory l i t e r a t u r e , literature  memory  o r planned a c t i o n  information;  previously  what i s of i n t e r e s t i s how much o f the  information  i s remembered.  prospective  memory,  particular  action  In c o n t r a s t ,  participants sometime  in  are asked the  i n studies  of  t o perform  future  with  i n d i v i d u a l p r o v i d i n g h i s or her own cues f o r r e c a l l  a  each  (Harris,  2  1984;  Wilkins  & Baddeley,  1978).  i n t e r e s t i s whether the intended  In t h i s  case,  what i s o f  a c t i v i t y w i l l be remembered  (and presumably performed). The  study  o f r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory has been p r i m a r i l y  c o g n i t i v e i n nature;  however, such an approach t o the study  of p r o s p e c t i v e memory may be i n a p p r o p r i a t e see a l s o Meacham, 1988). the  successful  consideration motivation, while  non-cognitive  prospective processes  of  many  commitment,  retrospective  Winograd (1988) has suggested t h a t  analysis of  prospective  memory  non-cognitive  context  involves  factors  effects).  (e.g.  He argues  that  f a c t o r s may or may not be i n v o l v e d i n  remembering, remembering.  involved  (Winograd, 1988;  in  they  are an  integral  This  becomes  evident  executing  a  planned  part  of  when the  action  are  examined. S u c c e s s f u l Completion of P r o s p e c t i v e Memory Tasks In order task,  five  1982J.  conditions  First,  1  some time an  t o s u c c e s s f u l l y complete a p r o s p e c t i v e memory must  be  fulfilled  ( c f . Meacham,  one must i n t e n d o r p l a n t o do something a t  i n the f u t u r e .  a c t i o n as opposed  Prospective  t o a thought  memory thus  (although  involves  one may  think  about the a c t i o n ) and the a c t i o n cannot be performed a t the present  time  (although  i t c o u l d be c a r r i e d out from seconds  Levy and L o f t u s (1984) have suggested t h a t s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s are necessary f o r compliance. As these authors note, however, remembering an intended a c t i o n i s only one aspect o f whether an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l comply with a request. 1  3  to  months  1982) .  t h e plan  Yet, as Winograd  future  intention  memory. does  after  A task  that  may  Planning  be  cannot  an  memory,  i n some  & Leiman,  out, not every  instance  of  be completed  prospective  involved  see Meacham  (1988) has p o i n t e d  constitutes  not i n v o l v e  memory  i s made;  prospective  on one  although  components  and remembering t o p i c k up a i r l i n e  occasion  prospective  o f t h e task. tickets  from a  t r a v e l agency c o u l d be considered a p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, s i n c e i n theory, and  i t can be done on one o c c a s i o n .  Planning  remembering t o prepare f o r an upcoming h o l i d a y i s not an  example o f a p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, s i n c e i t would be done over an extended p e r i o d of time ( c f . Winograd, 1988) . Second, one must have the knowledge necessary out  t h e planned  the a i r l i n e located.  action.  tickets,  Sinnott  For example,  i n order  to carry  t o p i c k up  one must know where a t r a v e l agency i s  (1989a) has termed t h i s type  of knowledge  " i n t e n t i o n a l memory". Third,  one must  the a p p r o p r i a t e not may  sufficient have  example, agency  remember  time.  closed  action at  t o remember a t t h e c o r r e c t time  consequences  remembering  has  t h e planned  Remembering too e a r l y o r too l a t e i s  and f a i l u r e  important  about  may  about be  (Harris,  the t i c k e t s frustrating  1984).  after and  For  the t r a v e l  could  produce  unnecessary d e l a y s . Fourth,  not only must one remember about t h e intended  a c t i o n , one must a l s o c a r r y out the p l a n .  F a i l u r e t o do so  4  may be due t o s e v e r a l lack of motivation.  factors  such  as p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n o r  For example, one may remember t h a t the  t i c k e t s need t o be p i c k e d  up but may decide t h a t  since the  t r a v e l agency i s not on the way home from work, the t i c k e t s can be p i c k e d up tomorrow o r the next day. Finally, one  must  once  keep  an intended  a  record  of  action the f a c t  performed i n order t o a v o i d r e p e a t i n g one  has picked  remember  that  up  has been  the a i r l i n e  the t i c k e t s have  that  it.  i t has  been  For example, once  tickets, been  performed,  he  obtained  o r she must i n order  to  a v o i d buying a second s e t . The  literature  r e l a t i n g t o each of these c o n d i t i o n s i s  reviewed below. Making t h e plan In  order  must f i r s t the  to carry  intend  future.  out a p r o s p e c t i v e  or p l a n  Although  memory task,  one  t o do something a t some p o i n t i n  the a c t u a l  sequence  of actions  one  might f o l l o w i n c a r r y i n g out the plan need not be s p e c i f i e d , the  intention  to carry  out a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n  must  be  formed. Much  of  the  literature  on  prospective  i n v o l v e d asking p a r t i c i p a n t s t o perform a given  memory  has  task such as  Although some readers may feel this condition i n v o l v e s r e t r o s p e c t i v e r a t h e r than p r o s p e c t i v e memory, as indicated later, an individual cannot feel that a p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k has been completed u n l e s s he o r she has e i t h e r an i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l record of having performed the task.  5  making phone c a l l s or m a i l i n g p o s t c a r d s a t p a r t i c u l a r times. The time frame w i t h i n which a t a s k needs t o be completed may be  narrow  (e.g. C e c i  Levy, Yamashita  & Bronfenbrenner,  & Pow, 1979).  1985) or wide (e.g.  P a r t i c i p a n t s may be asked t o  do t h e same t a s k s e v e r a l times d u r i n g the course o f a study. The  regularity  manipulated interval and  the t a s k  (e.g. Meacham  i s t o be done  & S i n g e r , 1977).  between when one p l a n s t o c a r r y  when  (e.g.  with which  the a c t i o n  Lay, 1988) .  i s actually Each  Moreover,  out some  completed  of these  can be the  activity  can be  manipulations  varied  will  be  c o n s i d e r e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l below. Time frame  frame.  on  Examination  prospective  o f the e f f e c t s  memory  performance  c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t types o f t a s k s . to  be  done  general  a t , or by, a  sense,  (Harris,  specified  time  Other  activities  need  and, i n a  before  t o these  or a f t e r  appointment another  as t a s k s  another.  keeping,  involves  that  This  involve  t o be  doing  performed H a r r i s has one  thing  i s a more g e n e r a l form o f  s i n c e doing one t h i n g  performing  very  keeping t a s k s  d u r i n g t h e course of a l a r g e r s e t o f a c t i v i t i e s . referred  involves  Some t a s k s need  can be c o n s i d e r e d appointment  1984).  of the time  the a c t i v i t y  before o r a f t e r at a  particular  p o i n t i n a sequence  of a c t i v i t i e s r a t h e r than a t a s p e c i f i e d  time  & McDaniel's,  (cf. Einstein  event-based Ellis',  and  time-based  1990, d i s t i n c t i o n  p r o s p e c t i v e memory  between  tasks  1988, d i s t i n c t i o n between steps and p u l s e s ) .  and  6  Particular determine doing  scoring  whether  one  a  criteria  study before  nominally  it  involve  nominally,  Meacham  Dumitru, one  1976)  thing  else  after  the  Colombo  the  another,  latter. (1980;  keeping even  For  see  specified  (leave the  s t u d i e s are  keeping  or  to or  though  example,  also  Meacham  &  r e q u i r e d t h e i r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o remember t o do  (perform  something these  and  make i t d i f f i c u l t  i n v o l v e s appointment  activity may  may  task)  experimental  similar  to  those  before  room).  In  involving  doing fact,  appointment  s i n c e the p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e q u i r e d to do the t a s k  by a s p e c i f i e d time  (before r e a c h i n g the door t o the room).  S t u d i e s t h a t have examined the e f f e c t s of time frame on prospective The  first  memory performance  into  three c a t e g o r i e s .  i n v o l v e s t a s k s that must be done a t , by,  specified  time  on  Bronfenbrenner, Harris  fall  &  a  1985;  specified  Ceci,  Wilkins,  1982;  1982;  Wilkins  Moscovitch,  Baker  day &  &  Baddeley,  1978). make  cited In  by  these  responses  such as pushing buttons, h o l d i n g up cards, t a k i n g oven, unplugging  to  1988;  participants  of the  asked  Minde,  &  studies,  a cake out  were  Ceci  Bronfenbrenner,  Moscovitch &  (e.g.  or f o r a  particular  a b a t t e r y charger,  and  making phone c a l l s . The  second  category  includes  studies  in  which  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o perform some task before or a f t e r another. course  The of  the  t a s k needed t o be performed study  or  at  the  end  of  e i t h e r d u r i n g the the  experimental  7  session  (e.g.  Loftus,  Dobbs  1971;  1976;  &  Meacham  Meacham  &  Rule,  1987;  & Colombo,  Leiman,  Participants  in  these  experimenter  f o r something  Kvavilashvili,  1980;  1982;  studies  Meacham  West,  were  &  Dumitru,  1984,  1988).  requested  to  (e.g. a red p e n c i l ) ,  the experimenter t o do something  1987;  ask to  the  remind  (e.g. open a s u r p r i s e  box,  f i n d the data f o r another p a r t i c i p a n t , make a phone c a l l ) or to remember t o do something in  which  they  they  left  the  were born, room,  themselves take  describe  an an  (e.g. name the s t a t e  envelope activity  with  them when  planned  f o r the  next day). In a t h i r d c l a s s of s t u d i e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o perform the s p e c i f i e d task on, or by, a s p e c i f i e d date (e.g. Levy,  1977;  Meacham These  &  Levy  et  Singer,  studies  a l . , 1979;  1977;  have  Orne,  typically  Meacham 1970;  involved  &  West,  Leiman,  1982 ;  1984,  1988).  participants  making  phone c a l l s or m a i l i n g p o s t c a r d s . The the  time  specified  frame w i t h i n task  which  ranges,  individuals  therefore,  must  from  perform  quite  short  ( s p e c i f i e d time on a s p e c i f i e d day) t o r e l a t i v e l y long (by a specified asked of  date).  Studies i n which  participants  t o perform an a c t i o n at some p o i n t  other  activities  generally  involve  have  during a  more  been  sequence  specific  time  frames than those i n which they are requested t o perform the t a s k on, involve  or a t , a p a r t i c u l a r time. less  specific  time  frames  But these s t u d i e s compared  to  those  also that  8  involve  doing  type and  the  task  on  p a r t i c u l a r date.  Not  with respect  distinction regular  only may  has  t o how  tasks vary w i t h  o f t e n they must be  been made between tasks  basis  and  those  that  infrequently  (e.g.  Leiman, 1982;  Meacham & Singer,  Habitual  Meacham  prospective  engages  in  on  a  &  perform  the  intended  improved  routine.  by  Dumitru,  respect  one  done.  A  done on  a  done  relatively  1976;  Meacham  or  are  activities  routine  a c t i v i t i e s may  activity  i s more  remind one  within  likely  Since  tasks  one's  to  times  Integrating enable one executed. Baddeley  everyday the  intended  However,  daily  remember  this  prospective in  on  an  was  different  within  a  not  not  routine  the  by  the  times.  may  also  a c t i o n has  observed  Several  memory tasks, are  infrequent  must remember about the  internal  action  at  to  been  Wilkins  &  (1978).  engages  task.  than  to determine whether or  Episodic one  rather  to may  take h i s or her medication twice d a i l y i f i t i s taken at same  &  that  basis.  a c t i o n , memory f o r h a b i t u a l  example,  they  1977).  regular  i n t e g r a t i n g the  For  t h a t are  are  memory tasks  environmental cues or preceding  be  task  time frame w i t h i n which they must be completed,  a l s o vary  one  Thus,  time frame have been confounded.  Task r e g u l a r i t y . t o the  a  activity  strategies  memory a i d s  (see  or  activities  that  irregular basis.  One  i n order  involving  below) may  to carry  either be  used  out  the  external  or  to  aid  one's  9  memory.  F o r example, one may t r y t o remember t o p i c k up a  s u i t from t h e dry c l e a n e r s by w r i t i n g a note. Although the d i s t i n c t i o n between e p i s o d i c and h a b i t u a l prospective little  memory  empirical  1977).  literature,  doing  one t h i n g  time-based  i s an i n t e r e s t i n g  support  As w e l l ,  this  tasks  like  f o r i t (e.g. Meacham  many  other  f o r example, before  tasks,  and steps  points,  but i s somewhat fuzzy a  and h a b i t u a l  loan  payment  another,  tasks  Singer,  proposed i n  event-based v s . the  distinction  i s c l e a r a t the end-  i n t h e middle.  once  &  an appointment v s .  vs. pulses,  episodic  making  dichotomies  keeping  or a f t e r  between  is  one, there i s  a month  For example,  an example  o f an  e p i s o d i c o r h a b i t u a l task? Time  interval.  Performance  on a p r o s p e c t i v e  t a s k may a l s o be a f f e c t e d by time  interval.  Time  memory interval  r e f e r s t o t h e length of time between when one plans t o c a r r y out  a  given  completed. type  only  and  when  the a c t i o n  i s actually  Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h i s may vary depending on the  of task.  after  activity  Some tasks  can be done almost  an i n t e n t i o n has been developed, be completed  after  some  length  immediately  however others  o f time  may  has passed.  Researchers have not always made a d i s t i n c t i o n between these two if  c a t e g o r i e s of tasks, but such a d i s t i n c t i o n i s necessary one i s t o attempt t o understand  the processes  i n v o l v e d i n c a r r y i n g out an intended a c t i o n .  t h a t are  10  Remembering t o perform may  involve  complete  maintaining  the task  Leiman, 1982). extensively Mycielska, time  by  case.  with  attention memory  long  future  enough  as such  to  (Meacham &  (e.g. Reason,  task  1979;  Reason has tended  regularity,  this  Reason  &  t o confound  need  not be the  remembering t o brush one's t e e t h while  f o r bed i n v o l v e s both a short time i n t e r v a l and a  habitual task. driving  i n t h e near  types o f a c t i v i t i e s have been s t u d i e d  Although  For example,  preparing  than  Reason  1982).  interval  one's  rather  These  an a c t i v i t y  home  D e c i d i n g t o stop a t the g r o c e r y s t o r e while  from  work may  involve  a short  time  interval,  but may a l s o be e p i s o d i c i n nature. Tasks t h a t can be done immediately have been the focus of Reason's r e s e a r c h on absent-mindedness Reason & M y c i e l s k a , 1982).  (see Reason, 1979;  For the most p a r t , however, the  p r o s p e c t i v e memory l i t e r a t u r e has focused on t a s k s t h a t to be completed from  minutes  extremely  after  some p e r i o d  of time  t o days  or weeks).  Thus,  short  time  intervals  need  (which can range  research  ( i n the order  involving of  a few  seconds) w i l l not be c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r . Three Loftus study  s t u d i e s have d i r e c t l y manipulated time  (1971) to  asked  report  participants  the  name  of  interval.  a t the b e g i n n i n g their  birth  o f the  state  after  answering a s e r i e s o f e i t h e r f i v e o r f i f t e e n q u e s t i o n s . Lay (1988) their  asked  airline  destination  passengers  point  either  t o mail when they  an envelope arrived  from  or t h r e e  11  days l a t e r .  Meacham and  Leiman  (1982, Experiment  p a r t i c i p a n t s to r e t u r n four postcards specified  dates beginning  prospective  memory  performance  i n t e r v a l increased. Leiman  (1982)  performance.  Loftus  that  Because of  time the  or  two  weeks  (1971) noted t h a t  deteriorated  In c o n t r a s t , Lay  found  asked  t o the experimenter on  e i t h e r immediately,  a f t e r the i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n .  2)  as  the  time  (1988) and Meacham  interval  had  no  effect  d i f f e r e n t procedures  not.  found  an  e f f e c t although  Intuitively  interval,  the  prospective issue,  i t would  more l i k e l y  memory  however,  have l i t t l e  one  i s to  task.  The  suggests  that,  planned  activity  having the This for  to  of  w e l l one  can  little  empirical  Sinnott,  1986a,  1989a).  she be  has  the  obtained  time  must be  met  to c a r r y  out  i n order  the  direct  a  this may  Unless  an  losing  for a  involves intention.  implications Yet,  theoretical interest  i t has  (but  i n d i v i d u a l knows he  necessary knowledge or t h a t the (without  on  interval  successfully  memory has  or  time  perform  literature  f u n c t i o n i n everyday l i f e .  received  the  did  memory performance.  completed  prospective  Loftus  studies  shorter  in  plan  that  be  two  remember t o  in fact,  knowledge necessary  aspect how  condition  the  limited  e f f e c t on p r o s p e c t i v e  second  other  seem t h a t  Knowledge f o r c a r r y i n g out the The  the  on  used  these t h r e e s t u d i e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine why (1971)  and  sight  of  information the  see or can  original  12  intention),  i t i s unlikely  that  the  intention  will  be  fulfilled. Having carrying  or  out an  knowledge  does  fulfilled. stock  obtaining  the  information  intention i s essential, not  ensure  that  the  necessary  for  but having  that  intention  For example, one needs t o know which  a particular  item  i n order  will  be  businesses  t o buy i t , but knowing  where the item can be obtained does not ensure t h a t i t w i l l be bought. Remembering the p l a n The t h i r d c o n d i t i o n f o r c a r r y i n g out a planned  activity  i n v o l v e s remembering the i n t e n t i o n a t the a p p r o p r i a t e Remembering may  have  i t too e a r l y or too l a t e  important  consequences.  i s not s u f f i c i e n t and  What  i s an  appropriate  time may, t o some extent, depend on the p a r t i c u l a r For  example,  3:00  p.m.  remembering  that  sufficient,  one  sometime  intended  between  t o go  time.  activity.  10:00 a.m.  t o the bank  may  and be  but remembering a t 3:00 t h a t one had a d o c t o r ' s  appointment a t 10:30 i s not. The importance of not only remembering one's i n t e n t i o n , but by  remembering t h e types  life.  i t a t the a p p r o p r i a t e  of memory  s t r a t e g i e s people  i s illustrated use i n everyday  Two general c l a s s e s o f s t r a t e g i e s can be used t o h e l p  one remember.  The type  of s t r a t e g y employed may depend on  the nature o f the task i n v o l v e d . may  time,  be  used  when  one must  Time monitoring s t r a t e g i e s  perform  a  task  a t , or by, a  13  s p e c i f i e d time, w h i l e memory a i d s may remember normal  to  do  something  routine.  alone  or  These  together.  appointment by  that  two For  keeping an  noted  that  example, eye  prospective for,  a  for  a  "anxious  time  checks the  and  course  of  the  may  infrequent  This  clock-checking  be  used  an  and  with  period.  As  is  during  during  which  psychological elapsed, other  a  an time  second  activities  with stage  and  the  the  of  which  r a r e l y check  time).  One  case,  frequency  an over  consequence,  one  to  waiting  the  engage  period,  activities. monitoring  a  compares  amount  during  or  this  a  allows  include  individual  appointment  a  i s to use " s t r a t e g i c  s t r a t e g i c time These  or  obtained.  strategy  strategy  increase  at, by,  increasing  involved  1985).  writing a  to  of  In  stages  Bronfenbrenner,  an  Bronf enbrenner have  i n d i v i d u a l to engage i n other in  either  (1985) have  a task  keeping  a l l o w i n g an are  her  remember  time, or by  monitoring".  A second, more e f f i c i e n t monitoring".  or  used  may  must do  l i n e a r f u n c t i o n of c l o c k - c h e c k i n g  time  be  s p e c i f i e d length  waiting  his  Bronfenbrenner  (e.g  clock  of  must  clock.  i s t o engage i n what C e c i  individual the  time  part  one  the  remembering when one  something  approach  on  strategies  particular  cooking  termed  Ceci  two  not  used when one  s t r a t e g i e s may  note as w e l l as watching the Time monitoring.  is  be  in  thus Three  (Ceci  &  c a l i b r a t i o n stage the  real  passage time  that  individuals clock,  and  of has  pursue a  third  14  stage d u r i n g which  the r a t e o f c l o c k - c h e c k i n g i n c r e a s e s as  the end o f the w a i t i n g p e r i o d i s approached. time  m o n i t o r i n g , a U-shaped  total  function  With  strategic  i s obtained  amount of time spent checking the c l o c k  and t h e  i s less  than  In anxious  time  when anxious time m o n i t o r i n g i s used. Both  strategies  monitoring, during  one  the  one  appropriate  disadvantages.  i s unable  waiting  monitoring  have  may  time.  t o engage  period, fail If a  i n other  whereas  to  in  perform  specific  strategic  the  task  activities  task  i s of  time  a t the  particular  importance though, one may use other s t r a t e g i e s  (in addition  to  the t a s k i s  strategic  time  completed on time There  monitoring)  t o ensure  that  (e.g. a w r i s t watch alarm).  i s some i n d i c a t i o n  that  both  strategies  may be  used by c h i l d r e n , although the type o f s t r a t e g y used depends on t h e c h i l d ' s age and t h e environment operating 1988). least  (e.g. C e c i  & Bronfenbrenner,  A d u l t s may a l s o under  some  use s t r a t e g i c  conditions  Because o f the very d i f f e r e n t is  difficult  i n which he or she i s  t o make d i r e c t  (Harris  1985; C e c i time &  monitoring, at  Wilkins,  procedures used,  comparisons  eta l . ,  1982).  however, i t  between t h e H a r r i s  and W i l k i n s study and the s t u d i e s conducted by C e c i and h i s co-workers Use passage  (Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, o f memory  aids.  1985; Ceci e t a l . ,  In a d d i t i o n  1988).  t o m o n i t o r i n g the  o f time, one may t r y t o remember t o do something by  15  u s i n g a memory a i d o f some s o r t . i n t o two major c a t e g o r i e s External  memory  environment. store  shopping  aids  lists,  and  alarms,  involve aids  manipulating  written  reminder  and e n t r i e s on c a l e n d a r s Other e x t e r n a l  leaving  objects  one's  may be p r i m a r i l y used t o  include  books o r day planners. watch  (see H a r r i s , 1978, 1980).  Some e x t e r n a l  information  Memory a i d s can be d i v i d e d  where  notes,  o r i n appointment  aids, they  such as w r i s t will  serve  as  v i s i b l e reminders, and wearing a watch o r r i n g i n an unusual manner, may serve  as general  reminders t h a t  an a c t i v i t y i s  t o be performed. External memory  memory  aids  internally.  aids  which  may  be c o n t r a s t e d  involve  with  manipulating  internal  information  Some i n t e r n a l a i d s i n v o l v e encoding s t r a t e g i e s ,  such as t h e peg-word, s t o r y , and l o c i methods, rhymes,  first  l e t t e r mnemonics, and making a s s o c i a t i o n s between names and faces.  Other  strategies, retracing various  internal  such  as  actions  memory a i d s  information,  concerned  with  (1982) has p o i n t e d External  aids  such  retrieval  and  For d e s c r i p t i o n s  mentally of these  (1979).  seem t o i n v o l v e  remembering  but most i n t e r n a l memory a i d s seem retrospective  out, though, t h i s as photograph  people f o r i n f o r m a t i o n  involve  searching  i n t e r n a l memory a i d s , see M o r r i s  prospective be  primarily  alphabetic  or events.  Many e x t e r n a l  to  aids  memory.  As  Neisser  need not be the case.  albums  o r asking  other  can be used t o r e t r i e v e r e t r o s p e c t i v e  16  information. internal one  Prospective  aids  must buy  t a s k s one  mentally  needs to do and (1978,  internal  information and  as  and  reported  f a c i l i t a t e d by  remembering  how  many  used  assessed the aids  life. adults  various  frequency  are  used  to  were  types  asked  of  to  memory  aids.  in  helping  one  intended  this  adults  remember  seems to  be  to the  (e.g. Kreutzer,  & Colombo, 1980;  perform case  f o r both  Meacham & Leiman, 1982).  Dumitru, (1976) have noted, the  may  not  be  use  of  actions.  young c h i l d r e n 1975;  Yet, an  e f f e c t i v e under a l l c o n d i t i o n s .  as  Meacham Meacham  external  cue  Moreover,  the  t o 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  individual specific.  oneself does not  is a  For  commonly used  example,  strategy,  look at the note, i t may  Carrying; out the  important, but  writing  but  i f an  a  note  to  individual  be an i n e f f e c t i v e one.  plan  Remembering one's i n t e n t i o n at the  be  People  are e f f e c t i v e  Leonard & F l a v e l l ,  and  will  how  u s i n g e x t e r n a l memory aids more than i n t e r n a l ones, aids  be  students  indicate  have been because e x t e r n a l  extent  many  remember  In h i s study, both  t h i s may  and  items  w i t h which  but  Indeed,  using  many have been done.  external  i n everyday  they  how  1980)  community-dwelling  often  be  and what they are, or keeping t r a c k of how  Harris both  such  memory may  appropriate  time i s  i t i s not enough to ensure t h a t the i n t e n t i o n  c a r r i e d out.  Thus,  the  fourth  component  that  is  17  necessary  for  completing  a c t u a l l y perform the  namely  memory. by  considered  involves  However,  is  to  cognitive  carrying  out  n o n - c o g n i t i v e processes,  procrastination,  commitment.  memory t a s k  intention primarily  intention i s influenced fatigue,  prospective  task.  Remembering the processes,  a  motivation,  Procrastination  and  the  such  incentive  motivation  as and  can  be  v a r i a b l e s t h a t are under an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n t r o l .  In c o n t r a s t , amenable  i n c e n t i v e and  to  subjective  commitment are v a r i a b l e s t h a t  experimental state,  but  an  manipulation.  Fatigue  experimental  manipulation  are  is  a can  a f f e c t one's l e v e l of f a t i g u e . Fatigue. performance Drew  The were  (1940).  ability  of  conditions fatigued  A  examined flight  pilots of  the  e f f e c t s of  to  extreme pilots  in  f a t i g u e on p r o s p e c t i v e an  simulator  early was  study  sequence of  fatigue.  Drew noted  the  conducted  used to determine  remember a  became,  memory  less  actions that  likely  also  less  likely  to  check  their  fuel,  temperature gauges, or the p o s i t i o n of the The may of  e f f e c t of f a t i g u e on p r o s p e c t i v e  other f o u r  also  factors.  may  and  undercarriage. memory performance  a f f e c t performance with For example, one  to  They  pressure  be more general, than t h a t examined by Drew. f a t i g u e may  more  were  remember t o perform the a c t i o n s at the s p e c i f i e d time. were  the  under  the  they  by  One's l e v e l  respect  to  be more l i k e l y  the to  18  procrastinate  or l e s s l i k e l y t o comply w i t h a request i f he  or she i s f a t i g u e d . Procrastination. one  Although p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  has remembered t h a t  implies  that  a p a r t i c u l a r t a s k needs t o be done  (but has not done i t ) , i t may a l s o be r e l a t e d t o f o r g e t t i n g t o do t h e task.  For example, one may remember t h a t a phone  call  needs t o be made, decide not t o make the c a l l  time  i t i s remembered,  and then g e n u i n e l y  f o r s e v e r a l hours or days.  forget  at the  about i t  I t may be d i f f i c u l t t o determine  i f t h e memory f a i l u r e i s a consequence of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n or forgetting. The carry  relation  between  out a p r o s p e c t i v e  (1988).  Participants,  airport,  procrastination memory  who  task  were  first  administered  procrastination  scale  and  Cognitive  Failures  was  both  modified  Questionnaire  (which  failing  examined  passengers  were  a  and  to  by Lay  waiting  i n an  Lay's  (1986)  version  of the  measures  general  memory f a i l u r e s ; see Broadbent, Cooper, F i t z g e r a l d & Parkes, 1982) .  They were then asked t o mail  destination  point  scored  on t h e p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  high  were l e s s l i k e l y  by a s p e c i f i e d  t o return  participants'  scores  time. scale  on  a failure  who  (procrastinators) those  Performance was not a f f e c t e d the  Cognitive  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e o r by the s p e c i f i e d m a i l i n g suggests t h a t  Participants  the envelope on time than  who scored lower on the s c a l e . by  an envelope from t h e i r  date.  Failures This  study  t o perform a t a s k as s p e c i f i e d may  19  not  necessarily  demonstrates include  be  that  memory  failure.  of prospective  assessments  Motivation  participants  administered  to  t o meet  Baddeley,  difference  need  remembering  indicate,  on  Meacham  and  self-rating  and  only  scales  o f t h e study (e.g.  the f a c t  that  1977; c f . W i l k i n s  Leiman  i n the number of postcards  participants  (1982)  returned  found  88% of the  although i n the  59% i n d i c a t e d they had performed as w e l l as they  performance  and  (based  Singer  on  (1977)  the number  found  that  of times  memory  the task  performed on time) was b e t t e r f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s who  o f t e n o r sometimes d i d t h e i r Incentive.  (Kvavilashvili, Poon  &  Meacham Both the  cited  and Singer  memory  & Singer,  i n West,  and Orne s t u d i e s  required  experimenter  have examined the e f f e c t s o f  prospective  1987; Meacham  Schaffer,  studies  on  they  best.  Four s t u d i e s  incentive  was  reported  they always d i d t h e i r best than f o r those who reported  of  no  (99% i n both  i n one study  i n d i c a t e d they d i d t h e i r best,  Meacham  level  to  has t y p i c a l l y been assessed by  the requirements  1978).  studies) , despite  could.  also  a t the end o f a study, how o f t e n they had done  best  other  memory  of  Meacham & Leiman, 1982; Meacham & Singer, &  It  ( c f . Meacham & Kushner, 1980).  Motivation.  their  to  studies  independent  forgetting  asking  due  performance  1977; Orne, 1970;  1984) .  Of  these, ^the  a r e t h e most  participants to return  over the course o f e i g h t  similar.  postcards  weeks.  to  In both  20  cases money was used that all  as the i n c e n t i v e .  Orne  (1970) found  r e t u r n r a t e s were h i g h e s t when p a r t i c i p a n t s  were p a i d  of the money a t the beginning o f the study and t o l d the  experimenter set  of  was  c o n f i d e n t they  postcards.  participants the study  The  would  return  r e t u r n the complete  rates  were  lower  when  were p a i d a l l of the money a t t h e beginning o f  (but were not t o l d the experimenter  the cards would be returned)  was c o n f i d e n t  and when they were g i v e n p a r t  of the money a t the beginning of the study and t o l d t h a t at the  end of the study  based  on the number  Singer  (1977) found  they  would  receive additional  of postcards that  returned.  funds  Meacham and  more postcards were r e t u r n e d , and  more were r e t u r n e d on time, when p a r t i c i p a n t s b e l i e v e d  they  could  than  receive  some  money  (high  incentive  condition)  when they d i d not. At  first  seem a t odds.  glance,  the r e s u l t s  of the two s t u d i e s may  For example, Orne's  (1970) p a r t i c i p a n t s  who  knew they c o u l d r e c e i v e a d d i t i o n a l money a t the end o f the study were s i m i l a r t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e h i g h condition  i n Meacham and Singer's (1977) study.  expect  that  the h i g h e s t r e t u r n r a t e s would  these  two  conditions.  This  was  not  incentive One might  be obtained i n observed.  One  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the obtained f i n d i n g s i s t h a t commitment may a l s o have been a f a c t o r i n the Orne (1970) study, but not i n the  Meacham  and  participants  who  Singer  (1977)  were t o l d  investigation.  the experimenter  That i s ,  was c o n f i d e n t  21  they  would r e t u r n a l l of the postcards  agreed with the experimenter's  request.  greater  reflected  commitment  performance  for  may this  be type  of  may  have  implicitly  As d i s c u s s e d below, in  task  better (i.e.  memory  returning  postcards). Poon and S c h a f f e r ( c i t e d i n West, 1984) monetary  a l s o noted  i n c e n t i v e s a f f e c t e d performance.  In  this  that  study,  the o l d p a r t i c i p a n t s were more l i k e l y t o make phone c a l l s time when payment was was  not.  related  to performance  The payment manipulation  had  little  performance of the young p a r t i c i p a n t s , who call  on  a very  2)  different  manipulated  paradigm,  incentive  by  importance of the p r o s p e c t i v e t a s k courtesy  vs.  a u t h o r i t y was  e f f e c t on  the  g e n e r a l l y d i d not  hanging  i t up  varying (hanging  because  expecting a c a l l ) .  Kvavilashvili the up  t h a t the task was  someone  commitment  may  Several be  of  studies to  these  medical  s e t t i n g s (e.g. Levy, 1977; has  have  performance  tasks.  Commitment  greater  As i n the s t u d i e s reviewed  memory  a l . , 1979).  Many  related  perceived  with  performed at the a p p r o p r i a t e  Commitment.  (1987,  a phone as a  above, the g r e a t e r the i n c e n t i v e , the h i g h e r the  et  when i t  time.  Using Study  than  on  have  been  probability  time. examined  on  prospective  conducted  Levy & C l a r k , 1980;  been manipulated  p a r t i c i p a n t s to v e r b a l l y agree t o perform  how  by  within Levy, asking  a t a s k or t o g i v e  22  both  verbal  and  written  agreement  that  the  task  would  be  make a phone c a l l  or  performed. When p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked mail  a postcard,  observed 1977;  as  better  the  level  to  prospective of  memory performance  commitment  Levy e t a l . , 1979).  increased  (e.g.  was  Levy,  No e f f e c t of commitment l e v e l  was  observed when p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o keep an appointment (Levy  & Clark,  keeping the  an  part  1980) .  appointment of  the  may  and  Clark  require  and  have suggested  greater  that  involvement  on  phone  call  or  as a r e s u l t , making a commitment  may  p a r t i c i p a n t than  m a i l i n g a postcard, be  Levy  making  a  i n s u f f i c i e n t to improve performance. Although  strong  motivational,  commitment  l e v e l s do  not  preclude  particular  individual will  incentive  the  and/or  possibility  procrastinate  that  a  out  a  in carrying  given a c t i v i t y , the s t u d i e s reviewed above have assumed t h a t they  may  validity within larger  reduce of  this  that  possibility.  assumption  may  which a p a r t i c u l a r task the  time  frame,  the  Nevertheless,  depend  on  needs t o be more  room  at  least  procrastinate,  the  time  the frame  completed.  there  to  without the  person a c t u a l l y f a i l i n g t o complete the t a s k  s p e c i f i e d time.  due  i n a week, one  it  i s not  due  For example, i f a grant may  begin working on  f o r three months, one  u n t i l a week or two  before  i t is  may  due.  some  for  individual  the  to  is  The an  extent, by  application i s  i t immediately.  If  delay working on i t  23 Knowing t h e p l a n has been completed The  fifth  prospective  component t h a t  memory  activity  has been  (Kausler  & Hakami,  Wilkins  task  received  may  be  due  to  Lichty,  As with  out an  intention,  that  this  r e t r o s p e c t i v e r a t h e r than p r o s p e c t i v e Kushner, 1980). this  Nevertheless,  i s an important  allows  one  aspect  t o determine  a c t u a l l y been executed Zur,  & Sheffer, Koriat  monitoring,  occur  responsible Retrospective  the prospective  paucity  of s t u d i e s  component  involves  memory (e.g. Meacham &  of p r o s p e c t i v e  whether  a  memory s i n c e i t  planned  activity  has  (1988) have  suggested  that  output  i s , knowing that a planned a c t i o n has been two  kinds  a t t h e time  for registering  of  processes.  an a c t i s completed the execution  On-line and are  of that  p r o c e s s e s occur when an a p p r o p r i a t e f o r judging  action. situation  the completion  action.  On-line (Koriat  component has  some authors have argued t h a t  i s presented and a r e r e s p o n s i b l e of a past  this  t h e knowledge  ( K o r i a t & Ben-Zur, 1988; K o r i a t , Ben-  and Ben-Zur  involves  processes  repetition  1988).  that  executed,  having  One reason f o r t h i s  the  & Freund, 1985;  attention within  the b e l i e f  that  t o avoid  1978).  empirical  memory l i t e r a t u r e .  remembering  i n order  1983; Kausler,  to carry little  involves  completed  & Baddeley,  necessary  i s necessary f o r completing a  m o n i t o r i n g may be accomplished  & Ben-Zur,  1988).  First,  the plan  i n s e v e r a l ways may be  erased  24  from a mental s c r a t c h pad o r an e x t e r n a l memory a i d (e.g. a note) may be destroyed. c o v e r t l y checked from  plans  Second, the p l a n may be o v e r t l y o r  o f f when completed,  thus d i s t i n g u i s h i n g i t  t h a t have not y e t been executed.  t h a t have been executed by other p l a n s .  may simply be f o r g o t t e n o r r e p l a c e d  order; once a p l a n has been  an index i s moved t o the next p l a n . always  occur,  Thus, a t times, action  plans  F i n a l l y , plans may be c a r r i e d out a c c o r d i n g  to some predetermined  not  Third,  and when  has been  executed.  O n - l i n e m o n i t o r i n g may  i t does,  one may experience  completed,  i t may  be  incomplete  doubts about whether an  For example,  one may  question  whether a door was locked or an a p p l i a n c e was turned o f f . In these i n s t a n c e s , such doubts may be a l l e v i a t e d by l o o k i n g for  r e t r o s p e c t i v e evidence  some cases, evidence  the  may  simply  (e.g. checking  appliance), review  this  however  bolt  into  i n others, that  place,  completion.  i n v o l v e checking  the l o c k  (e.g. r e c o l l e c t i n g  dead  ( s i c ) of t a s k  or  f o r external  the s t a t u s  i t may  In  of the  i n v o l v e an  internal  one had d i f f i c u l t y  sliding  or that  one put the a p p l i a n c e  away). Although retrospective internal  K o r i a t and Ben-Zur obtained some evidence f o r monitoring,  on-line monitoring.  o n - l i n e monitoring and,  they  processes  found  evidence f o r  For the most p a r t , are c a r r i e d  t h e r e f o r e , may not be r e a d i l y  inquiry.  little  internal  out a u t o m a t i c a l l y ,  accessible  t o conscious  25 Summary Five  conditions  prospective intending  need  to  fulfilled  before  memory task can be s u c c e s s f u l l y completed: o r planning  t o do something  having t h e knowledge necessary (c)  be  out  the  intention;  and  (e)  (b)  out the i n t e n t i o n ;  remembering the i n t e n t i o n a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  carrying  (a)  i n the future;  to carry  a  time; (d)  knowing  that  the  i n t e n t i o n has been completed. The of  l i t e r a t u r e on p r o s p e c t i v e  these  conditions,  but there  has been  examine any of them i n d e t a i l . reflect  the  investigators memory  general rather  1.  First,  tasks,  than any attempt  store  specific  prospective  this,  several  much o f the e m p i r i c a l work has i n v o l v e d  children  A few i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have i n v o l v e d e l d e r l y  but the middle  age range  has been  largely  Second, s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have i n v o l v e d p a r t i c i p a n t s postcards such  everyday  passing  of  t o study  Despite  and making  as p r e s s i n g  along on  specified  activities  phone  buttons  another, have a l s o been used. of  interests  i n Table  participants,  mailing  attempt t o  emerge from the papers summarized  or young a d u l t s .  ignored.  little  By and l a r g e , i t appears t o  research  systematically.  characteristics  memory has addressed each  that  calls,  although  other  o r doing  one task  after  There i s , however, a number have  not been  examined (e.g.  a v e r b a l message, p i c k i n g up something a t the  the way manner).  home  from  Third,  work,  although  completing  tasks  in a  the v a r i e t y o f i s s u e s  Table 1 A summary o f the p r o s p e c t i v e memory  literature  T h e o r e t i c a l and review Study  papers  Major focus  Baddeley & W i l k i n s (1984)  d i s t i n c t i o n between PM and RM i s weak; dichotomies, such as short-term/long-term and e p i s o d i c / s e m a n t i c , which have been a p p l i e d t o RM are a l s o r e l e v a n t t o PM  Beal  young c h i l d r e n may f a i l t o perform PM t a s k s a p p r o p r i a t e l y because they do not recognize (a) when they should use reminders, (b) what reminders would be e f f e c t i v e , and (c) how i n f o r m a t i v e reminders w i l l be i n the f u t u r e ; o l d e r c h i l d r e n 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  (1988)  a  (1984)  PM s t u d i e s are d i v i d e d i n t o those i n v o l v i n g appointment keeping and those i n v o l v i n g doing one t h i n g b e f o r e o r a f t e r another; some d i s c u s s i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s i s provided, but the emphasis i s on the monitoring aspect of PM  Levy & L o f t u s (1984)  focuses on compliance w i t h i n medical s e t t i n g s ; memory i s only one of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which a f f e c t compliance  Meacham  the m o t i v a t i o n a l context w i t h i n which an i n d i v i d u a l  Harris  (1982)  (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  T h e o r e t i c a l and review papers Study  Major focus i s o p e r a t i n g w i l l determine whether an intended a c t i o n i s remembered and/or c a r r i e d out  Meacham (1988)  i n t e r p e r s o n a l dynamics a f f e c t performance on PM t a s k s  Sinnott  d i s c u s s e s a number of i s s u e s and methodological questions concerning PM; provides a summary o f the PM l i t e r a t u r e  Winograd  (1989a)  PM and RM are compared; concludes t h a t PM i s a f f e c t e d by n o n - c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s t o a g r e a t e r extent than RM  (1988)  Experimental Study Beal  (1985) Study 1  Papers  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  kindergarten (mean=5.7;  answer 6 questions r e g a r d i n g the use  the 2 youngest groups provided (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Study 2  C e c i , Baker, & Bronfenbrenner (1988)  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  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 t o a i d PM  fewer c o r r e c t responses than the a d u l t s , although the 3 youngest groups d i d not d i f f e r from each other; boys performed b e t t e r than g i r l s ; some o f the q u e s t i o n s were more d i f f i c u l t than others, e s p e c i a l l y f o r the c h i l d r e n  p r e s c h o o l e r s (mean= 4.5; n=10) k i n d e r g a r t e n (mean= 5.7; n=20) grade 3 (mean=8.7; n=18)  answer 6 q u e s t i o n s regarding the use of a cue t o h e l p r e l o c a t e a hidden object  grade 3 s t u d e n t s performed b e t t e r than the 2 youngest groups, who performed e q u a l l y well  10 year o l d s  bake cupcakes f o r e x a c t l y 30 minutes  monitoring c l o c k s which run 10% o r 33% f a s t e r o r slower than normal produces a U-shaped (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major  findings  function; monitoring c l o c k s which run 50% f a s t e r o r slower than normal produces a linear function Ceci & Bronfenbrenner (1985)  10 year o l d s (mean= 10.7; n=48, 24 M, 24 F ) 14 year o l d s (mean= 14.6; n=48, 24 M, 24 F)  bake cupcakes o r charge motorcycle battery f o r exactly 30 minutes  s t r a t e g i c time monitoring used i n home; anxious time monitoring used i n the l a b ; o l d e r c h i l d r e n use s t r a t e g i c time monitoring more than younger c h i l d r e n , but only i n the l a b  Dobbs & Rule (1987)  a d u l t s (3 0-99; n=228, 83 M, 145 F)  ask f o r a r e d pen p r i o r t o drawing 2 shapes (about 2 0 minutes l a t e r ) ; put date and time i n a specified location on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to be completed a t  age s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with performance on both PM t a s k s ; no significant c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - r a t i n g s o f PM and performance on  b  (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Drew (1940)  Einstein & McDaniel (1990) Study 1  Study 2  Task(s)  used  Major  findings  home  the PM t a s k s  perform a s e t of simulated f l y i n g manoeuvres; check readings on v a r i o u s instruments  the c o r r e c t t i m i n g of the maneuvers and checking o f the instruments d e c l i n e d with increasing l e v e l s of fatigue  young ( s t u d e n t s ; 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 b e t t e r on RM t a s k but no age d i f f e r e n c e s f o r PM task; PM r e l a t e d t o use of memory a i d s ; no r e l a t i o n between PM and RM t a s k s  young ( s t u d e n t s ; 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 b e t t e r with f a m i l i a r than with u n f a m i l i a r word; young perform b e t t e r than o l d on RM task;  pilots  (n=??)  (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  mean=67.3; n=24) Ellis  (1988)  H a r r i s (1978/1980) Study 1  Study 2  Major f i n d i n g s no r e l a t i o n between PM and RM t a s k s  a d u l t s (28-41, mean=3 5; n=7, 1 M, 6 F)  keep a d i a r y of planned intentions f o r 10 days  d i s t i n c t i o n made between s t e p s ( a c t i o n s which can be performed w i t h i n a f l e x i b l e time period) and p u l s e s ( a c t i o n s which need . t o be performed a t a p a r t i c u l a r time and place)  s t u d e n t s (19-27, mean=21; n=3 0, 15 M, 15 F)  s p e c i f y the frequency with which v a r i o u s memory a i d s are used  e x t e r n a l a i d s used more than i n t e r n a l aids; f o r internal aids, r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g i e s used more f r e q u e n t l y than encoding s t r a t e g i e s  females (23-67, mean=4 6; n=3 0)  s p e c i f y the frequency with which v a r i o u s memory a i d s are  similar findings to above; g r e a t e r use of c e r t a i n e x t e r n a l a i d s (appointment (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Harris & Wilkins (1982)  females n=29)  (adults??;  Jackson, Bogers & Kerstholt (1988)  students young (18-30, mean=20.5; n=114) o l d (51-78, mean= 62.5; n=39)  Task(s) used  Major  findings  used  books, c a l e n d a r s , shopping l i s t s , alarm cooking timers)  h o l d up sheets of paper with times w r i t t e n on them a t 3 o r 9 minute intervals  the m a j o r i t y of t h e responses o c c u r r e d within the f i r s t few seconds of t h e c r i t i c a l period; the time i n t e r v a l between t h e second to l a s t and t h e l a s t c l o c k check was r e l a t e d t o the type of response made ( f a s t , slow, l a t e ) ; no e f f e c t due t o time i n t e r v a l  complete a questionnaire a s s e s s i n g both memory l a p s e s and the use o f v a r i o u s mnemonics  both groups use e x t e r n a l a i d s more than i n t e r n a l ones in general; i n specific situations, o l d use i n t e r n a l and (con't)  Table 1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s external aids equally often to remember RM information; use e x t e r n a l a i d s more than i n t e r n a l a i d s t o remember PM i n f o r m a t i o n ; young use i n t e r n a l a i d s t o remember both PM and RM i n f o r m a t i o n  K o r i a t & Ben-Zur (1988) Study 1  young people (n=25)  i n t e r v i e w on memory f o r performed planned a c t i o n s  l i t t l e evidence f o r on-line monitoring although some f o r retrospect ive monitoring; d e f i c i e n t output monitoring may produce a c t i o n omission, r e p e t i t i o n or checking (con't)  LO CO  Table  1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  young (20-30; n=20, 11 M, 9 F) o l d (65-87; n=20, 8M, 12 F)  r e c a l l l i s t of semantically r e l a t e d words  o l d produce about the same number o f repetitions overall as the young, but were more l i k e l y t o repeat words than the young  young (18-28, mean= 22.7; n=30, 9 M, 21 F) o l d (60-87, mean= 70.1; n=30, 15 M, 15 F)  r e c a l l l i s t of semantically unrelated words; on r e c o g n i t i o n task, i n d i c a t e which words had been r e c a l l e d  o l d more l i k e l y t o repeat words than young; o l d worse a t recognizing r e c a l l e d words than young; h i t rate i n  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) K o r i a t , Ben-Zur & S h e f f e r (1988) Study 1  Study 2  (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  -Task(s)  used  Major f i n d i n g s r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k was negatively correlated with likelihood of repeating words f o r o l d but not f o r young  Study 3  Kreutzer, Leonard, & F l a v e l l (1975)  young (21-31, mean= 24.5; n=40, 14 M, 26 F) o l d (61-85, mean= 71.2; n=40, 28 M, 12 F)  s o r t words i n t o 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  o l d worse than young at both i n p u t and output m o n i t o r i n g ; o l d worse a t output monitoring than a t input m o n i t o r i n g ; young worse a t i n p u t monitoring than a t output m o n i t o r i n g  k i n d e r g a r t e n (n=20, 10 M, 10F) grade 1 (n=20, 10 M, 10 F) grade 3 (n=20, 10 M, 10 F)  answer questions regarding t a k i n g skates t o school and remembering a friend's birthday party  a l l children feel e x t e r n a l a i d s are b e t t e r than i n t e r n a l ones, but o l d e r c h i l d r e n ( t h i r d and f i f t h graders) (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  grade 5 (n=20, 10 M, 10 F)  Kvavilashvili (1987) Study 1  Study 2  Major f i n d i n g s suggested a g r e a t e r number o f d i f f e r e n t a i d s than younger children  students (17-27; n=30, 40 M, 40 F)  remind experimenter to look f o r the data f o r a s p e c i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l a t the end of the t e s t session  remembering the contents o f a message and remembering i t a t the a p p r o p r i a t e time are not r e l a t e d  students (16-28; n=300, 126 M, 174F)  hang up a telephone receiver after 5 minutes  performance was b e t t e r with an important request than with an unimportant one and when an intervening task was u n i n t e r e s t i n g than when i t was absorbing (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  Lay  a i r l i n e passengers ( a d u l t s ??; n=84, 56 M, 28 F)  mail an envelope on a r r i v a l a t d e s t i n a t i o n or 3 days l a t e r  no e f f e c t of time i n t e r v a l on performance; low procrastinators returned the envelope on time more o f t e n than high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  mothers o f j u n i o r high s t u d e n t s i n a b e h a v i o r therapy program (n=44)  make a phone c a l l between 7 and 9 p.m. on a s p e c i f i e d day  b e t t e r compliance i n the v e r b a l + w r i t t e n c o n d i t i o n than i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n ; no significant d i f f e r e n c e between the v e r b a l commitment only c o n d i t i o n and t h e other 2 c o n d i t i o n s  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 o f commitment manipulation ( v e r b a l + w r i t t e n vs. no commitment)  Levy  (1988)  (1977)  Levy & C l a r k (1980)  (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study-  Participants  Task(s)  Levy, Yamashita & Pow (1979)  patients at f l u inoculation c l i n i c s ( a d u l t s ??; n=703)  mail symptom r e p o r t card a f t e r 48 hours  more cards r e t u r n e d and more r e t u r n e d sooner i n the (verbal) commitment c o n d i t i o n than i n the c o n t r o l (no commitment) c o n d i t i o n , although the e f f e c t s may be due p r i m a r i l y t o d i f f e r e n c e s between clinics  L o f t u s (1971)  adults  name the s t a t e i n which they were born a f t e r answering a s e r i e s of questions  performance was b e t t e r with 5 than with 15 q u e s t i o n s ; performance was b e t t e r when p a r t i c i p a n t s knew the content o f the l a s t q u e s t i o n than when they d i d not  Mateer, Sohlberg, & C r i n e a n (1985)  a d u l t s (???) b r a i n i n j u r e d with coma (n=121)  complete a 3 0item s e l f - r e p o r t questionnaire  a l l 3 groups r e p o r t greatest d i f f i c u l t y with attention/PM  (n=200)  used  Major f i n d i n g s  (con't)  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  b r a i n i n j u r e d without coma (n=57) non-brain i n j u r e d (n=157)  regarding 6 aspects of memory  and l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y with h i s t o r i c a l / overlearned memory  Meacham & Colombo (1980)  kindergarten (mean=5.8; n=38) grade 2 (mean= 7.7; n=38)  remind experimenter to open a box a t the end o f the experimental s e s s i o n (7 minutes l a t e r )  remembering was more frequent i n the e l a b o r a t i o n than i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n ; no s i g n i f i c a n t age effects  Meacham & Dumitru (1976)  kindergarten (mean=5.6; n=41) grade 2 (mean= 7.6; n=41)  take an envelope from the t e s t i n g room a t the end o f the experimental s e s s i o n (7 minutes later)  older children were more l i k e l y t o remember than younger c h i l d r e n , although a l l c h i l d r e n were able t o choose an appropriate cue; no d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n d i t i o n s (no cue, cue, cue + elaboration) (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  Meacham & Kushner (1980)  students (n=107, 42 M, 31 F)  describe 3 situations involving PM: f o r g o t t e n ; remembered but not done; remembered and completed  when a t a s k was remembered but not executed, low comfortableness r a t i n g s were obtained; when a task was f o r g o t t e n , low importance and moderate comfortableness r a t i n g s were obtained; importance and comfortableness were not r e l a t e d with remembered tasks, but were negatively c o r r e l a t e d with forgotten tasks  mail e i t h e r 4 o r 8 postcards on s p e c i f i e d dates over a p e r i o d of 32 days  the percentage o f cards mailed on the a p p r o p r i a t e dates was approximately  Meacham & Leiman (1982) Study 1  students 14 F)  (n=27, 13 M,  (con't)  Table 1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s the same f o r the t a g and the ho t a g c o n d i t i o n s , however, the tag c o n d i t i o n was b e t t e r than the no t a g c o n d i t i o n f o r l a t e r dates when o n l y 4 c a r d s had t o be r e t u r n e d ; no r e l a t i o n between PM and RM t a s k s  Study  2  Meacham & S i n g e r (1977)  students 22 F)  (n=44,  students 2 5 F)  (n=48, 23 M,  22 M ,  mail 4 postcards on s p e c i f i e d dates over a p e r i o d of 16 or 32 days  i n the l o n g - i n t e r v a l condition (similar to the 4 c a r d c o n d i t i o n i n Study 1), performance was b e t t e r i n the t a g than i n the no t a g condition for a l l dates  mail 8 postcards on s p e c i f i e d dates over a p e r i o d of 8 weeks  more cards were mailed on time i n the high than i n the low i n c e n t i v e (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s condition; greater use o f e x t e r n a l a i d s i n t h e h i g h than i n the low i n c e n t i v e condition; better performance with h i g h than with low effort  M o s c o v i t c h & Minde ( c i t e d i n Moscovitch, 1982) Study 1 young (n=10) o l d (n=10)  make a phone c a l l everyday f o r 2 weeks at a time convenient for participant  10% o f o l d and 8 0% o f young missed a t l e a s t 1 appointment; o l d used e x t e r n a l memory a i d s more than young  Study 2  young old  make 2 phone c a l l s , 1 per week at a time chosen by experimenter  r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r t o those obtained i n Study 1  Study 3  young old  make 2 phone c a l l s  when requested t o use i n t e r n a l a i d s only, approximately (con't)  Table 1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s 50% o f the o l d missed an appointment, but they were no worse than the young; old reluctant to g i v e up e x t e r n a l aids  Orne (1970)  s t u d e n t s (n=31)  mail 1 postcard every day f o r 8 weeks  more cards were returned by p a r t i c i p a n t s who both r e c e i v e d payment i n advance and were t o l d the experimenter was c o n f i d e n t they would r e t u r n a l l o f the cards than by p a r t i c i p a n t s who were only p a i d i n advance o r who were p a i d some of the money i n advance and t o l d they would r e c e i v e (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s a d d i t i o n a l funds a t the end o f the study  Poon & S c h a f f e r ( c i t e d i n West, 1984)  young (18-38, mean= 25.3) o l d (58-88, mean= 73.2)  make 2 5 phone c a l l s over a 3 week p e r i o d  o l d remembered more c a l l s , c a l l e d more c l o s e l y t o the t a r g e t time and were more c o n s i s t e n t over time than the young; o l d more a c c u r a t e with l a r g e than with small monetary payments w h i l e young generally late r e g a r d l e s s of payment  Reason (1979)  a d u l t s (15-46, mean=29; n=3 5, 12 M, 23 F)  keep d i a r i e s of " a c t i o n s not as planned" (memory f a i l u r e s only)  entries c l a s s i f i e d into 5 categories; the 3 most common appear t o be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o PM  Ritter  preschoolers (3-5.4; mean= 4.3; n=80)  answer questions regarding r e l o c a t i n g a hidden o b j e c t  grade 3 students were able t o use an e x t e r n a l cue  (1978)  (con't)  T a b l e 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  grade 3 (8.8-9.6, mean=9.2; n=16)  Schonfield & Shooter ( c i t e d i n Welford, 1958)  adults  (15-71)  Searleman & Gaydusek (1989)  s t u d e n t s (n=60, 30 M, 30 F)  Major f i n d i n g s spontaneously; preschool c h i l d r e n could do so o n l y a f t e r prompting  press Morse key before g i v i n g a response t o a second t a s k  the number o f omitted key p r e s s e s i n c r e a s e d with age  remind experimenter to make a phone c a l l ; r e t u r n an i n f o r m a t i o n card  Type A p a r t i c i p a n t s were more l i k e l y t o remind t h e experimenter t o make the c a l l than Type B i n d i v i d u a l s ; those high i n s e l f actualization reminded the experimenter sooner than those low i n s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n ; Type A individuals returned t h e c a r d sooner than Type B (con't)  Table  1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s)  used  Major  findings  individuals Sinnott  Sinnott  (1986a)  (1986b)  adults (2 3 - 9 3 ; n = 7 9 , 43 M, 36  F)  adults (2 3 - 9 3 ; n = 7 9 , 43 M, 36  F)  answer a s e t of questions on prospective and incidental memory at 3 different times (same d a y , 7-10 days l a t e r , 18-21 months later)  age was negatively correlated with memory ( i . e . young performed better than old) for incidental items at t i m e s 2 and 3, but was positively correlated with m e m o r y f o r PM i t e m s a t t i m e 3; no age or time effects were observed f o r most of t h e PM t a s k s  answer questions regarding prospective, action, or incidental memory w i t h r e s p e c t to the test experience at 3 d i f f e r e n t times (same d a y , 7-10 days l a t e r , 18-21 months later)  memory f o r items declined over time, but rate of decline was a b o u t t h e same f o r t h e young and t h e o l d ; when differences occurred, young forgot at a faster (con't)  Table 1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s r a t e than the o l d  West (1984) Study 1  Study (same West, Study  2 as 1988, 1 ??)  young (18-39; n=45) middle-aged (40-59; n=36) o l d (60-90; n=23)  make 3 e n t r i e s regarding representative memory a c t i v i t i e s i n a d i a r y each day f o r 7 days  about 4 5% of t h e diary entries i n v o l v e d PM, across a l l age groups; as w e l l , the use o f s t r a t e g i e s d i d not vary with age  adolescents (14-18; n=2 3) young a d u l t s (25-4 0; n=24) o l d (60-81; n=26)  remember i n t e r v i e w appointment; l o c a t e f o l d e r a t end of i n t e r v i e w ; phone experimenter before bed on the same day; mail a postcard 2 days l a t e r ; i n d i c a t e s t r a t e g y used t o remember the c a l l and the postcard  96% remembered the i n t e r v i e w ; 100% remembered t o l o c a t e the f o l d e r ; no age d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the phone c a l l ; young and o l d groups mailed i n card more o f t e n than not, but often forgot to include the strategy message; adolescents f a i l e d t o r e t u r n the card and i n c l u d e the s t r a t e g y message (con't)  Table  1  (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s to  West (1988) Study 1  Study 2  the same extent  a d o l e s c e n t s (14-18, mean=16.3; n=2 3) young (25-40, mean= 3 2.4; n=2 4) o l d (60-81, mean= 73.9, n=24)  make a phone c a l l before r e t i r i n g f o r the n i g h t on the same day as the i n t e r v i e w ; mail a postcard 2 days l a t e r ; i n d i c a t e s t r a t e g y used t o remember each task  f o r both t a s k s , young used e x t e r n a l a i d s more than the o l d group; adolescents l e a s t l i k e l y t o mail card, while o l d l e a s t l i k e l y t o put a s t r a t e g y message on the c a r d ; no d i f f e r e n c e s between groups f o r the phone c a l l  young (students; 19-23, mean=19.8; n=26) o l d (63-83, mean= 72.0; n=2 6)  remind experimenter to do something a t s p e c i f i e d times d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w (approximately 30-35 minutes a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n s given)  young remember more of the d e t a i l s o f the request than old; o l d affected more by cue type (verbal + v i s u a l vs. verbal + s i t u a t i o n a l ) than young (con't)  4> 00  Table 1 (con't)  Study  Participants  Task(s) used  Major f i n d i n g s  W i l k i n s ( c i t e d by S i n n o t t , 1989a)  adults  mail 1 p o s t c a r d from 2 t o 36 days after instruction  no e f f e c t o f time i n t e r v a l on r e t u r n rate  Wilkins Baddeley  females n=31)  push button on print-out clock 4 times per day f o r 7 days  g r e a t e r accuracy a t 8:30 a.m. than a t 1:00 p.m. o r 5:30 p.m.; performance at 10:00 a.m. d i d not d i f f e r from other times; 37% o f 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:  a  (1978)  (n=34)  (35-49;  PM = p r o s p e c t i v e memory; RM = r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory.  F = females.  M=  b  males,  50  t h a t have been examined that  (and as a consequence, t h e f i n d i n g s  have been obtained)  conclusions external  can be  memory  adulthood) relative  motivation,  factors  an  performance;  as  and  age  (c)  in  not d i f f e r  steps,  fatigue,  commitment  t h e use o f (at l e a s t  adults,  i n performance (b) s e v e r a l  affect  prospective  prospective  memory  o f age; and (d)  have been made  simple v s . compound tasks,  to  procrastination,  as a f u n c t i o n  many o f the d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t  tasks)  with  improvement  such  incentive,  performance may  vs.  some t e n t a t i v e  (a) i n g e n e r a l ,  increases  produces  diverse,  t o t h e use o f i n t e r n a l memory a i d s ;  non-cognitive  memory  drawn:  aids  and  are q u i t e  (e.g. p u l s e s  habitual vs. episodic  have not r e c e i v e d much e m p i r i c a l a t t e n t i o n . Fundamental Questions  The e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e r a i s e s three very fundamental  important and  questions.  F i r s t , much o f the l i t e r a t u r e suggests t h a t memory  can  memory.  be  examined  Nevertheless,  prospective processes  and  independently  some researchers  retrospective  is:  Are p r o s p e c t i v e  claimed  involve  1984).  and  retrospective  have  memory  (e.g. Baddeley & W i l k i n s ,  question  of  prospective  that  similar  Thus, the f i r s t  retrospective  memory  different? Second, typically measures  performance on  been measured have g e n e r a l l y  using been  prospective objective ignored.  memory tasks;  tasks  has  self-report  I t i s assumed  that  51  o b j e c t i v e measures provide actual  ability  to  information  function  about an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  i n everyday  life.  However,  performance on these measures may be i n f l u e n c e d by what one believes It  about h i s o r h e r a b i l i t y  i s , therefore,  memory  not c l e a r t o what extent  literature  provides  i n d i v i d u a l ' s perceived and  t o remember  intentions.  the p r o s p e c t i v e  information  regarding  a b i l i t y t o f u n c t i o n i n everyday  h i s o r her a c t u a l  ability  to function.  may  own memory. or  may  behavioral is:  But, performance  not  reflect  measures.  o f h i s or  on s e l f - r e p o r t measures  performance  on  objective  Thus, the second question  Do s e l f - r e p o r t and o b j e c t i v e  life,  Self-report  measures can be used t o assess one's p e r c e p t i o n s her  an  or  one can ask  measures of  prospective  memory c o r r e l a t e ? Third, or w i l l of  people g e n e r a l l y  d e c l i n e with age.  t h e memory  memory  and  performance  aging  prospective  that  their  memory has  This b e l i e f  i s supported by much  literature  which  on r e t r o s p e c t i v e  with age (e.g. H u l i c k a , the  believe  1982; Kausler,  memory l i t e r a t u r e  memory  suggests tasks  1982).  that  declines  In c o n t r a s t ,  suggests t h a t the e l d e r l y  perform as well as, i f not b e t t e r , than young p a r t i c i p a n t s . Thus, one can ask: and  elderly  prospective These  I f given  a v a r i e t y of tasks,  individuals d i f f e r  in their  do young  s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to  memory f a i l u r e s ? three  d e t a i l below.  questions  will  be  examined  in  greater  Are p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory d i f f e r e n t ? The  question  memory are  of whether p r o s p e c t i v e  different  can  be  examined  p e r s p e c t i v e s , namely, everyday l i f e , theoretical  the  intended Mateer,  life.  past  is  Being  Sohlberg  able  important,  actions i s just  as  but  & Crinean,  use  type  memory  strategy  past  strategy  and  (prospective  memory).  may  to  perform  i f not more so This  by  For example, people  may  to  remember  information  a very  different  something tomorrow or next  To  (see  i s supported  ( r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory) and  t o remember to do  past, one  different  information  remembering  1987).  i n everyday l i f e .  of  remember  important,  behavior  about the  three  empirical research,  to  people's one  from  retrospective  approaches.  Everyday about  and  remember  information  attempt to r e c o n s t r u c t an event  about  using  or photographs; to remember to do something, one  week the  diaries  may  make a  mental note or p l a c e a r e l e v a n t o b j e c t where i t w i l l be seen (Neisser, 1982; people  hold  West, 1984, about  1988).  each  other  i n f o r m a t i o n being remembered. remember  information  said  be  to  forgotten, 1966) .  the  There  about  unreliable, individual i s an  depend  on  past if  his  an  t h a t an  beliefs type  of  i s unable to  her  intended  i s considered  expectation  or  memory i s action  is  u n r e l i a b l e (Munsat, individual  unable t o remember something about the past may  the  I f an i n d i v i d u a l  the but  In a d d i t i o n , the  not be o v e r l y c l e a r with respect to events  may  be  or t h a t memory t h a t occurred  53  some time  ago.  I f that  i n d i v i d u a l does  c a r r y out a number o f intended some  concern  about  his  not remember t o  a c t i o n s , though, i t may cause  or  her  ability  to  function  independently. Empirical  research.  reviewed e a r l i e r can  be  in  i s the assumption t h a t  studied  memory.  Implicit  relatively  Nevertheless,  t o compare p r o s p e c t i v e  the  literature  prospective  independently  of  memory  retrospective  the few s t u d i e s t h a t have attempted and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory performance  d i r e c t l y have produced c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s . Loftus presence items  (1971),  of a r e t r i e v a l would  Participants answering prospective being  affect were  a  memory  of  Half  with  been  given  a retrieval  more  questions,  prospective factors  t o name either  or  performance.  birth 15  the l a s t  state  after  questions  (the  question  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were h a l f were n o t .  fewer questions,  o r no  memory  their 5  with  question,  was b e t t e r  whether the  cue and the number of i n t e r v e n i n g  task),  o f the l a s t  examined  prospective  asked  series  the same.  content  f o r example,  t o l d the  Performance  and when p a r t i c i p a n t s had  cue than when they cue.  always  Loftus  had been  concluded  that  given both  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory are i n f l u e n c e d by these  ( c f . Lay, 1988).  Baddeley and W i l k i n s (1984) have claimed t h a t much of p r o s p e c t i v e memory may i n v o l v e r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory. As Meacham (1982; see a l s o Munsat, 1966) has noted though, memory must n e c e s s a r i l y be from, but not n e c e s s a r i l y about, the past. 3  54  In a second study,  W i l k i n s and Baddeley  performance on a r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory task series  o f word  memory  task  times).  with  with  (remembering  performance  t o push  a  ( f r e e r e c a l l of a on  a  button  prospective  at  specified  P a r t i c i p a n t s with high r e c a l l performance d i d not  remember recall  lists)  (1978) compared  t o push  t h e button  performance. respect  to  retrospective  These  these  as o f t e n  results  particular  and p r o s p e c t i v e  as those  with  suggest  that,  tasks,  performance  memory  tasks  low  at least on  i s negatively  related. In  a third  study,  Meacham and Leiman  (1982,  Study 1)  a l s o assessed  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory by a s k i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s t o  recall  of unrelated  task  lists  involved  specified  returning  dates  words.  The p r o s p e c t i v e  e i t h e r four  over a p e r i o d  or eight  of 32 days.  memory  postcards  on  Performance on  the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with performance on t h e r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k . Kvavilashvili  (1987) has argued  significant  positive correlation  prospective  memory  Wilkins that  prospective  and  correlation  r e t r o s p e c t i v e and  and Leiman  retrospective  memory  of information.  could,  were  memory  f o r intended  assessed  The absence o f a  t h e r e f o r e , be due t o the tasks  r a t h e r than a d i f f e r e n c e between memory f o r p a s t and  (1982) and  (1978) s t u d i e s may be due t o t h e f a c t  u s i n g two d i f f e r e n t types positive  between  i n t h e Meacham  and Baddeley  t h a t t h e absence o f a  actions.  To  information  determine  whether  55  performance was  on p r o s p e c t i v e  correlated  information,  when  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e  performance  Kvavilashvili  was  (1987,  based  memory t a s k s on  Experiment  students t o d e l i v e r a v e r b a l message.  another  room  apparent a s i d e , second  f o r an  asked  additional  investigator  experiment.  As  an  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were requested t o ask the  investigator  for a specified  When asked,  the second  unable  find  to  1)  A f t e r completing one  experiment, students were asked t o see a second in  t h e same  the  participant's  experimenter i n d i c a t e d results  and,  results.  that  i n turn,  she was  asked  the  p a r t i c i p a n t t o remind her t o look f o r them a t the end o f the session study  ( i . e . the second  experiment).  was whether t h e p a r t i c i p a n t  would  experimenter t o look f o r the r e s u l t s task)  and f u r t h e r ,  whether  the name o f the s p e c i f i e d task;  see a l s o H a r r i s ,  between remembering  person  and  i n this  t h e second  (the p r o s p e c t i v e memory would  remember  (the r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  No c o r r e l a t i o n was observed  to deliver  the content of the message.  prospective  remind  the p a r t i c i p a n t  1984).  when t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n  Of i n t e r e s t  the message and remembering  These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t i s used  retrospective  even  f o r both types o f task,  memory  appear  to  involve  separate processes. Theories. have  been  Typically,  conducted  without  studies  of p r o s p e c t i v e  reference  t o any  theoretical  p e r s p e c t i v e and, as a consequence,  the l i t e r a t u r e  quite  approaches  diverse.  However,  three  memory  has been  have  been  56  developed.  Two  of these  deal  primarily  memory and t h e r e f o r e have l i t t l e , whether p r o s p e c t i v e One aspect and is  to  Wilkins' based  memory, and i s e x e m p l i f i e d  (1982) T e s t - W a i t - T e s t - E x i t  on M i l l e r ,  explanatory  Galanter  (TWTE) model which (1960)  Test-  (TOTE) model f o r c a r r y i n g out p l a n s .  TWTE  rather  than  and Pribram's  descriptive  i f an independently  completed,  something  else  thus  indicating  (Harris  (e.g. whether  functioning that  the  finished  i t s cycle  dryer) .  I f a t e s t i n d i c a t e s that  has  by H a r r i s  &  Wilkins,  In the model, an i n d i v i d u a l p e r i o d i c a l l y makes t e s t s  determine  been  t o say about  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory are d i f f e r e n t .  of prospective  1982).  i f anything,  prospective  t h e o r e t i c a l approach emphasizes t h e time monitoring  Operate-Test-Exit is  with  so the c l o t h e s  process has  i t i s time  washing can be  t o do  machine  has  put i n t o the  t h e process  of i n t e r e s t  not been completed, the i n d i v i d u a l must wait f o r a given  period  o f time  before  making  another  test.  The use an  i n d i v i d u a l can, o r does, make of the time d u r i n g periods  may  depend  on  several  factors,  the waiting  including  how  a c c u r a t e l y he o r she can judge the passage o f r e a l time, the amount o f e f f o r t i n v o l v e d i n making t h e checks or t e s t s , and the c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d with f i n i s h i n g the process too e a r l y or too  late  (Harris  Bronfenbrenner, monitoring control  &  1985).  strategy  vary  Wilkins, Tasks with  that  1982; require  respect  an i n d i v i d u a l has over the r a t e  cf. this  Ceci  &  type of  t o the amount o f a t which the task  57  proceeds.  For example, an i n d i v i d u a l has more c o n t r o l  when a garden s p r i n k l e r  over  i s turned o f f than when water i n a  k e t t l e reaches the b o i l i n g p o i n t .  Tasks may a l s o vary  with  r e s p e c t t o the d e f i n i t e n e s s o f the beginning and end p o i n t s . For  example,  a  boundaries. diffuse  In c o n t r a s t ,  prospective  to  memory  one may f a i l  the process. and  then  cooking  Harris  and  failures  may  t o monitor  For example,  forget  that  something burning. fail  cycle  has a  very  roast  i n v o l v e s more  t o monitor  Wilkins' occur  (1982)  f o r three  one may put a cake  i t i s there  Second,  house  until  the  i t for a specific  individual  task.  y e t when  i n the oven  the time, but  For example, one  may  leaving  the p a r t i c u l a r  simply  f o r g e t t i n g t o take the cake out f i r s t . remember the t e s t c r i t e r i o n .  reasons.  he or she s m e l l s  one may' monitor  t o run an errand,  arrives,  model,  the task during the course of  may i n t e n d t o take the cake out of the oven b e f o r e the  specific  boundaries.  According  First,  dishwasher  time  leave  the  house,  Third,  one may not  For example, one may f o r g e t t o  check on the cake a t 3:15 (or 40 minutes a f t e r i t was put i n the oven) to  because he or she f o r g e t s how long the cake needs  cook. The  second  emphasizes performance. the  context  the  theoretical effects  approach of  t o p r o s p e c t i v e memory  non-cognitive  factors  For example, Meacham (1982) has suggested within  which  an  individual  on that  i s operating i s  58  heavily will  influenced  affect  by m o t i v a t i o n a l  whether  and/or c a r r i e d out.  an intended  level,  which  action w i l l  i n turn,  be remembered  Since m o t i v a t i o n may a f f e c t performance  on both r e t r o s p e c t i v e and p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k s , Meacham (1988)  revised  his earlier  position  by  claiming  that  p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance i s not a f f e c t e d by m o t i v a t i o n per  se, but by the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n which an  individual  i s enmeshed.  emphasized by  the  operating The  In  that prospective  social  context  so  doing,  memory performance  within  which  ( c f . Meacham, 1982; S i n n o t t , notion  important  that  factor  in  interesting  one,  yet  prospective  memory  Meacham  an  prospective alone  performance  situations.  It is difficult  interpersonal  r e l a t i o n s could  individual  are  an  remembering  is  an  account  a l l tasks  always  account  least  partially,  been  echoed  by  procrastination, all  affect  exception  memory  performance  by non-cognitive Winograd  of Winograd's  incentive  memory paper,  be  factors.  (1988).  motivation,  prospective  may  As  The v a l u e i n the idea  affected, at This  view has  noted  earlier,  and commitment  performance. though,  how  f o r why one  of Meacham's (1982; 1988) t h e o r e t i c a l work l i e s prospective  for  in a l l  see, f o r example,  might f o r g e t t o p i c k up a book from t h e l i b r a r y .  that  is  relations  cannot  on to  i s affected  1986b).  interpersonal  these  (1988)  little  may  With  the  effort  has  59  been  devoted  to  comparing  retrospective  and  prospective  memory. The holds  third  that  theoretical  prospective  approach  and  to prospective  retrospective  memory  memory involve  s i m i l a r processes  and t h a t making a d i s t i n c t i o n between them  has  little  value  other  of  memory  that  Wilkins in  (1984),  has  than t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o an aspect largely  f o r example,  the r e t r o s p e c t i v e  term/long-term prospective suggestion identical  and  been  ignored.  claim that d i s t i n c t i o n s  memory  literature,  such  episodic/semantic,  memory.  Baddeley  Despite  this  as  also  claim,  found short-  apply  there  and  to  i s some  t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory a r e not (e.g. K v a v i l a s h v i l i ,  1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982;  Winograd, 1988). Do s e l f - r e p o r t and o b j e c t i v e measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory correlate? It  has  important everyday  been  argued  that  t o p i c f o r research life  (e.g. Baddeley  1989a; West, 1984) .  prospective  &  Wilkins,  Yet, the extent  day  i n d i v i d u a l ' s perceived basis  ability  and h i s o r her a c t u a l  presumably c a r r y out)  intended  1984;  Sinnott,  t o which the e x i s t i n g information  regarding  t o f u n c t i o n on a day-toability  t o remember (and  actions i s unclear.  The m a j o r i t y o f s t u d i e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e have prospective  memory  by  i s an  because of i t s r e l e v a n c e f o r  p r o s p e c t i v e memory l i t e r a t u r e provides an  memory  requiring  participants  to  assessed perform  60  s p e c i f i c tasks. easily  s c o r a b l e by some c r i t e r i o n  to study, are  to a c t i v i t i e s  performance  the  difficulties  perform  (which v a r i e s from  even f o r t h e same type  similar  life,  These t a s k s are o b j e c t i v e i n t h a t they a r e  intended  methodological  Although  p a r t i c i p a n t s perform  on t h e t a s k s people  o f task) .  may  actions  procedures  in  reflect  i n remembering t o  general.  may l i m i t  they  i n everyday  may not a c c u r a t e l y  experience  study  At  least  four  the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f  many p r o s p e c t i v e memory s t u d i e s . First, somewhat  the range of tasks used by r e s e a r c h e r s has been  limited  participants  have  postcards. message,  (see been  Table  asked  Other a c t i v i t i e s ,  remembering  1).  In  many  t o make phone  studies,  calls  o r mail  such as p a s s i n g along a v e r b a l  t o p i c k up something  the way home from work, or completing  a t the s t o r e on  important  a s p e c i f i e d manner, have l a r g e l y been ignored  documents i n (cf. Sinnott,  1986a; West, 1984, 1988). Second, that the  related  asking  that  However,  would there  performance  will  yield  is  some  1988).  one task  results  be observed  with  evidence  on one p r o s p e c t i v e  performance on a second task 1984,  i s the ( i m p l i c i t )  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o perform  experimenter)  those  to this  task  that  assumption  (e.g.  phoning  are s i m i l a r to  a very  different  task.  which  suggests  that  may not g e n e r a l i z e t o  (e.g. Dobbs & Rule,  1987; West,  61  T h i r d , i n many s t u d i e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s have been asked t o c a r r y out the same task s e v e r a l times over the course o f the investigation  (e.g. Meacham  &  Leiman,  1982;  Meacham  &  Singer, 1977; Moscovitch & Minde, c i t e d i n Moscovitch, 1982; Orne,  1970) .  life.  This  does  not g e n e r a l l y occur  Although an i n d 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 ) of  i n everyday  several  a day o r a week, the s p e c i f i c  identical  times  d u r i n g t h e course  details  are p r o b a b l y not  (e.g. one does not always phone the same p e r s o n ) .  Fourth, p a r t i c i p a n t s  a r e o f t e n asked  p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k ( s ) without  to carry  out the  being g i v e n a r a t i o n a l e  f o r doing so, other than because they a r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g memory  study.  rationale may  If participants  f o r performing  not c a r r y  a r e not given a  a particular  out the i n t e n t i o n ,  task,  reasonable  however,  not because  remember i t , but because they do not wish  ina  they  they  do not  t o do i t .  Based  on the o b j e c t i v e data, a r e s e a r c h e r i s unable t o d i s t i n g u i s h between these two a l t e r n a t i v e s .  Conversely, i f p a r t i c i p a n t s  are extremely motivated t o do a memory study, they may make every  effort  t o remember and c a r r y  out an i n t e n t i o n ,  though they may not make as much e f f o r t Once  again,  the o b j e c t i v e  biases.  A  r e s e a r c h e r may  control  such  overly  successful  data  Moscovitch, 1982, f o r an  are affected  by  basis. unknown  use a number of t e c h n i q u e s t o  b i a s e s ; however, (see  on a d a i l y  even  these  Moscovitch example).  techniques &  Minde,  may  n o t be  cited  in  62  One  way i n which the e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f p r o s p e c t i v e  memory r e s e a r c h can be improved i s through the use o f s e l f report  measures such as memory d i a r i e s ,  checklists. report  Although  measures  difficulties  1984).  report  measures  assess  memory  people  People's  the 1984;  One of the major d i f f i c u l t i e s with  self-  lack  can  remember about  of o b j e c t i v i t y .  about  their  a number o f reasons  & Herrmann, c i t e d  Perlman,  1984).  Since  they  their  they  are b i a s e d by  memory  failures.  own memory may be  inaccurate  (Baddeley,  Shlechter  1979; Herrmann, 1982;  i n C r o v i t z , Cordoni,  For example,  people  s e v e r i t y o f t h e i r memory problems. occur  self-  (see Herrmann,  i s their  beliefs  using  performance,  on long-term memory t o some extent,  what  for  to  a r e problems with  a r e not insurmountable  Morris,  rely  there  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and  may  Daniel, &  not know the  Memory f a i l u r e s  probably  q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y , but s i n c e most f a i l u r e s do not have  important mental  consequences,  record  Memory  of them  failures  there  is little  (e.g. W i l k i n s  that  disrupt  &  one's  need  t o keep  Baddeley, life  1978).  or  cause  embarrassment, however, are l i k e l y t o be remembered. result,  a  As a  r a r e but c o n s e q u e n t i a l memory lapses may be r e p o r t e d  as o c c u r r i n g more f r e q u e n t l y than they a c t u a l l y do. Despite  the problems a s s o c i a t e d with  measures,  they  reported,  thus p r o v i d i n g a way t o gather  memory  allow  functioning  both  that  overt  would  using  and c o v e r t  be  self-report  failures  t o be  information  about  difficult  to  acquire  63  through  field  Baddeley,  or laboratory research  1984).  For example,  (Sunderland,  self-report  measures can be  used t o determine how i n d i v i d u a l s p e r c e i v e t h e i r remember t o perform perceptions objective  can then  o r making  self-report been  included  1988;  memory  phone  assessments conducted.  self-report  self-assessments  or planned  be compared with  prospective  postcards  have  intended  such  Two  as  studies memory  measures, but these  mailing involving  performance  additional studies  of p r o s p e c t i v e  These  t h e i r performance on  of p r o s p e c t i v e Three  a b i l i t y to  activities.  tasks,  calls.  Harris &  have  also  have not i n v o l v e d  memory performance  (Ellis,  Meacham & Kushner, 1980; West, 1984). In  one study,  Mateer e t a l . , (1987) asked  both  head-  i n j u r y p a t i e n t s and i n d i v i d u a l s with no known b r a i n i n j u r i e s to  complete  frequency  questionnaire  of various  head-injured most  a  types  and t h e normal  difficulty  with  assessing  o f memory  normal,  the second healthy  questionnaire  controls  reported  adults  Dobbs to  and  asked t o perform  having  the  and the  information.  Rule  complete  (1987) a  asked  metamemory  i n p a r t , assessed t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of  t h e i r p r o s p e c t i v e memory a b i l i t i e s ) . also  Both the  a t t e n t i o n / p r o s p e c t i v e memory  study,  (that,  perceived  failures.  l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y with h i s t o r i c a l / o v e r l e a r n e d In  the  The p a r t i c i p a n t s were  two p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k s  (asking  f o r a r e d pen a t a s p e c i f i e d time and i n c l u d i n g the date and time  on t h e top o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) .  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 p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance. Do young and e l d e r l y i n d i v i d u a l s 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 t o p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s ? Several  studies  prospective  memory  have  examined  the e f f e c t s  performance.  The  o f age on  majority  of  these  s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t e l d e r l y p a r t i c i p a n t s perform as well  as,  i f not b e t t e r  than,  younger  participants  on  p r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks. One  exception  ( c i t e d i n Welford, perform  a  elaborate  is a  prospective  Their  task  key  task).  to  giving  discover  as  mean  and Moscovitch Poon  what  part  and Shooter  their  of  a  more  to raise  four  pattern  pattern  d i d not occur  and  of dots. position  i n any o f the other  were i n s t r u c t e d t o press response  number  increased with  obtained  In  task  t o r e v e a l a simple  As w e l l , they  The  individual those  was  a dot t h a t  before  memory  a c t i v i t y . . The p a r t i c i p a n t s were  one a t a time,  patterns.  by S c h o n f i e l d  1958) i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o  flaps,  contained  study  of  age.  (the p r o s p e c t i v e  key  presses  memory  omitted  per  These r e s u l t s c o n t r a s t  with  by Poon and S c h a f f e r  (cited  i n West, 1984)  and Minde ( c i t e d i n Moscovitch, and S c h a f f e r ' s  a Morse  (cited  i n West,  1982). 1984)  study,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o make 25 phone c a l l s a t d i f f e r e n t times over a three were asked  week p e r i o d .  t o make the c a l l s  Half  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s  a t a time  designated  by t h e  65  experimenter, the o t h e r s were asked t o make them a t a s e l f selected  time.  The e l d e r l y p a r t i c i p a n t s  on time more f r e q u e n t l y Similar (cited  were  at  were asked  weeks.  participant.  The  Eight  one appointment, of  asked  specified  participants two  participants.  r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d by Moscovitch and Minde  participants  for  than the younger  i n Moscovitch, 1982).  service  remembered t o c a l l  In t h e i r study, young and o l d  to  call  times.  a In  to c a l l  telephone one  experiment,  a t the same time  specific  time  was  the  everyday  chosen  by  the  out of t e n young people missed a t l e a s t  and some missed s e v e r a l .  the t e n o l d e r  answering  participants  missed  However, only one  an appointment.  The  r e s u l t s seemed t o r e f l e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' use of memory a i d s ; older  participants  used e x t e r n a l  younger  participants,  trusted  t h e i r memories  anything)  were  the  second experiment, call  and  the  ( i . e . used  ones  who  i n which  memory a i d s younger  more than the  individuals  who  i n t e r n a l memory a i d s , i f  missed  the  appointments.  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  A  were asked t o  the experimenter once a week, a t a time chosen by the  experimenter,  produced  similar  results.  In  a  experiment, the p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked not t o use memory  aids,  appointment  but  rather,  to  make  a  mental  note  times and t o keep the phone number  where i t would not be e a s i l y n o t i c e d . approximately  half  of  the  older  third  external of the  i n a place  With t h i s procedure,  participants  missed  an  66  appointment, but they were s t i l l  no worse than the younger  individuals. The since  studies  reviewed  participants  relatively  were  meaningless  course o f t h e study. to  perform  realistic by  West  above  required  activity  to  artificial,  perform  the  a t s i m i l a r times  same  over the  O r d i n a r i l y , though, one must remember  various  activities  at different  studies of prospective (1984,  a r e somewhat  1988),  Sinnott  times.  More  memory have been conducted (1986a),  and Dobbs and Rule  (1987) . In  the  first  participants  study  were  representative  asked  of t h e i r  reported to  keep  memory  by a  West  diary,  activities,  (1984), that  was  f o r one week.  Approximately 45% of a l l e n t r i e s i n v o l v e d p r o s p e c t i v e memory (cf.  Crovitz  Minde's  et a l . ,  findings  1984).  (cited  Contrary  in  Moscovitch,  s t r a t e g i e s d i d not seem t o vary with Bogers  &  Kerstholt,  investigation,  1988;  West,  of  objects  in  the  1982)  1988). that  In  for  a conversation home,  was  call  participant  second  a number and the  conducted. prospective  remembering an appointment, l o c a t i n g a f o l d e r  the interviewer  phone  memory  a  included  P a r t i c i p a n t s were a l s o asked t o perform s e v e r a l memory t a s k s :  and  age (see a l s o Jackson,  an in-home i n t e r v i e w ,  of memory t e s t s such as remembering location  t o Moscovitch  and  a t the end of t h e i n t e r v i e w ,  leaving  a  message  remembered t o c a l l ,  indicating  and m a i l i n g  making a how  the  a postcard  two  67  days a f t e r the i n t e r v i e w participant exception  with a message i n d i c a t i n g how the  remembered  of including  to  perform  the  Sinnott's by  West  With  the message on the p o s t c a r d ,  p a r t i c i p a n t s performed j u s t as w e l l younger i n d i v i d u a l s  task.  as, i f not b e t t e r ,  the older than  ( c f . West, 1988).  (1986a) study supported the f i n d i n g s  (1984).  In  this  investigation,  obtained  individuals  p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an ongoing l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t on aging  were  center.  tested  during  a  routine  stay  a t the  They were asked two types of q u e s t i o n s  everyday a c t i v i t i e s . prospective required  r e l a t e d to  Some o f the questions were considered  i n nature  for  research  planned  since  they  actions;  referred others  to  information  were  considered  i n c i d e n t a l s i n c e they were not r e l a t e d t o planned a c t i o n s or experiences  with  respect  to  the  participants.  Older  i n d i v i d u a l s performed as w e l l as the younger p a r t i c i p a n t s on the p r o s p e c t i v e items, but the younger i n d i v i d u a l s performed better that be  on i n c i d e n t a l  items.  Sinnott  (1986b), though, noted  a b s o l u t e performance on some everyday memory t a s k s may influenced  forget  by  age,  but the rate  a t which  does not seem t o be age-dependent  individuals  (see a l s o  Dobbs &  Rule, 1987). In  a  participants  third  study,  Dobbs  and  Rule  (1987)  (near the beginning of the study)  asked  t o remember  t o ask f o r a red pen p r i o r t o drawing two shapes  (later in  the study) and t o put t h e date and time of completion i n the  68  upper  left  corner  given to f i l l of  a  questionnaire  i n a t home.  age and up)  the youngest  of  The  that  they  would  oldest individuals  (70  be  years  f o r g o t t o ask f o r the red pen more o f t e n than t h e r e was  no  d i f f e r e n c e i n performance f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s between 30 and  69  years  of  declined  individuals  age. with  Performance i n c r e a s i n g age.  relatively difficult of  ( i n t h e i r 30's),  on  the  but  date  and  time  task  T h i s appears t o have been a  task, s i n c e only about 50 t o 60  percent  the two youngest groups remembered t o put e i t h e r the  date  or the time anywhere a t the top of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  When  c r e d i t was  been  included  g i v e n o n l y i f both the date and the time had  i n the s p e c i f i e d  observed. Rule  Once  again,  location,  the  no age  results  i n d i c a t e t h a t performance on  d i f f e r e n c e s were  obtained  by  Dobbs  p r o s p e c t i v e memory  does not d e c l i n e , a t l e a s t up to about 70 years of The  comparable  participants contrast memory  on  performance  prospective  t o what the  and  laboratory apparently s t u d i e s and  to  how  tests  elderly they  of  conflicting  elderly  memory  tasks  typically  perform  memory  of  (see  on  a  is  Kausler,  tasks  age.  and  young  in  marked  b e l i e v e about number  of  1985).  their  standard These  f i n d i n g s (between p r o s p e c t i v e memory  s t u d i e s of c o g n i t i v e d e c l i n e i n general)  accounted f o r by a t l e a s t two  can  be  so  pervasive  that  o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s ; they may  be  factors.  F i r s t , the s t e r e o t y p e regarding memory changes with may  and  impairment  may  be  exaggerated  age by  be more aware of memory problems  69  and  therefore  frequently behavior  may r e p o r t  than  they  memory f a i l u r e s  actually  do.  t h e c a r keys)  that  i s taken  young, may become a matter o f g r e a t age  i f i t i s regarded  Thus,  The  (such as f o r g e t t i n g a person's  has p l a c e d  older  as a s i g n  i n d i v i d u a l s may  as o c c u r r i n g more everyday  name o r where one l i g h t l y when one i s  concern w i t h  o f mental  feel  same  that  advancing  deterioration.  memory  f a i l u r e s are  more i n d i c a t i v e o f memory problems than younger i n d i v i d u a l s (cf.  Erber,  may a l s o  1989; Erber,  Szuchman,  be t h e case t h a t ,  imperfect  memory i s even  memory f a i l u r e s something  example,  as people  1990).  age, they  f o r young a d u l t s . of an expected  They may rather  they have experienced throughout t h e i r  lives.  questionnaire  Perlmutter  studies  (1978)  and  support  this  Zelinski,  Sunderland Sunderland, Powell for  (cited  older  Herrmann  i n Sunderland,  Harris  (1980)  younger ones.  found  and Gleave better  individuals  than  (1983) found l i t t l e  (1984)  Gilewski  and  having  Harris &  & Baddeley,  1984),  and Bennett-Levy  s e l f - r a t i n g s o f memory younger  ones.  than  For  In c o n t r a s t ,  Harris  view  view.  Thompson (1980) found t h a t o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d poorer memories than  It  f o r g e t how  decline  Several  as p a r t  & Rothberg,  and  ability  Chaffin  and  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r young  and o l d p a r t i c i p a n t s . It  i s not c l e a r why the expected  memory d e c l i n e s are  not always r e f l e c t e d i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e  scores.  Perhaps  older  individuals  failures  because  they  experience  fewer  memory  70  are  less  active  strategies affected  than  younger  and memory a i d s by  the  individuals,  t o avoid  consequences  of  failures, their  use  more  or are less  memory  failures  (Morris, 1984; Jackson e t a l . , 1988). A  second  discrepancies the  that  could  between t h e p r o s p e c t i v e  literature  that  factor  on general  research,  tasks,  procedures,  or a l l three  favour  o f the young  case,  for  the  memory l i t e r a t u r e and  cognitive  i n the l a t t e r  account  declines  subject  with  selection  age i s  criteria,  v a r i a b l e s may be b i a s e d i n  participants.  If this  i s indeed the  i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t these types of s t u d i e s have  typically age.  concluded  Even  information  that  memory  i f the a b i l i t y  performance  to learn,  does d e c l i n e with  Sunderland,  Watts,  retain  with  and use new  age, i t may not be  as a s e r i o u s problem i n everyday l i f e 1988;  declines  perceived  (e.g. Jackson e t . a l ,  Baddeley  &  Harris,  Difficulty  i n remembering t o perform intended  considered  more s e r i o u s .  1986).  a c t i o n s may be  Summary The raises  prospective three  very  memory l i t e r a t u r e summarized i n T a b l e 1 important  issues  that  have  not  been  adequately addressed. First, retrospective produced  the  memory  ambiguous  theoretical  question  of  involve  empirical  attention.  whether different  data  Both  prospective  and  processes  has  and has r e c e i v e d  everyday  experience  little and a  71  number  of empirical  retrospective processes.  studies  memory  may  The general  they a r e r e l a t e d Baddeley,  indicate that not  involve  conclusion,  exactly  though,  (Meacham, 1982; S i n n o t t ,  1978).  Further  prospective  and  the same  has been  that  1989a; W i l k i n s  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s needed  &  on t h i s  issue. Second, objective received  the  question  measures virtually  of no  of  whether  prospective  memory  consideration,  work has not g e n e r a l l y  included  self-report correlate  since  regarding  measures  prospective  from t h a t d e r i v e d Third,  the  may  s e l f - r e p o r t measures (but  provide  memory  Nevertheless,  interesting  performance  information  that  i s distinct  from o b j e c t i v e measures. question  of  whether  prospective  performance changes with age has been the focus studies.  F o r the most  indicated not  that  part,  investigations  e l d e r l y p a r t i c i p a n t s perform as w e l l  have  as,  if  memory  However, p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the middle age range have  e i t h e r not been i n c l u d e d  at a l l ,  i n one o r both o f the other age  these  memory  of several  b e t t e r than, younger p a r t i c i p a n t s on p r o s p e c t i v e  tasks.  has  the empirical  see Dobbs & Rule, 1987; Mateer e t a l . , 1987). self-report  and  i s assumed  or they have been  age groups.  t o be l i n e a r l y  related  This  included  implies  that  t o performance on  prospective  memory t a s k s .  Although t h i s may be a reasonable  assumption,  i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t there  r e l a t i o n between the two v a r i a b l e s .  i s a curvilinear  Some anecdotal  reports  72  support t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . or  i n the process  complain  I n d i v i d u a l s r a i s i n g young c h i l d r e n  o f making  o f memory d i f f i c u l t i e s .  whose c h i l d r e n have r e c e n t l y just it  retired,  often  ever was.  middle  aged  examining very  major  claim  career  changes  In c o n t r a s t ,  left  individuals  home, o r those who  have  t h a t t h e i r memory i s b e t t e r  than  I t would appear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t individuals  prospective  often  (as a d i s t i n c t  memory  inclusion of  group)  performance  with  i n studies age may  be  insightful. Overview o f the Present Research These  three  retrospective self-report  questions  memory and  involve  behavioral  whether p r o s p e c t i v e of  First,  since  prospective  d i f f e r e n t processes, measures  and  whether  are c o r r e l a t e d ,  and  memory performance v a r i e s as a f u n c t i o n  age) , were the focus  dissertation.  ( i . e . whether  of the research  presented  in this  The research was based on two major premises. carrying  out intended  actions  times i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of everyday l i f e , a v a r i e t y of everyday tasks  should  at  appropriate  i t was f e l t  be used.  Second,  that since  everyone has, o r i s , l i k e l y  t o experience a f a i l u r e t o c a r r y  out  activity,  a planned  general  or intended  i t was  felt  that the  p u b l i c as opposed t o c o l l e g e students should  serve  as p a r t i c i p a n t s Five  studies  are  presented.  The  first  three  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n v o l v e d the development o f a memory d i a r y , a memory  questionnaire,  and  a  metamemory  questionnaire,  73  respectively.  These  were  then  used  i n Studies  4 and 5.  Study 1 As  mentioned,  memory l i t e r a t u r e  many o f the s t u d i e s i n the p r o s p e c t i v e have r e q u i r e d p a r t i c i p a n t s  c a l l s or mail postcards. relevance  f o r everyday  Although these t a s k s do have some functioning,  been g i v e n t o whether these are l i k e l y  t o forget  t o make phone  little  a r e the types  i n "real  life".  types o f t a s k s are r a r e l y f o r g o t t e n .  attention of t a s k s  has  people  I t may be t h a t  some  For example, b u s i n e s s ,  school or s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s may not be f o r g o t t e n as o f t e n as remembering t o take something books, p a p e r s ) . type  I t may a l s o be the case t h a t i t i s not t h e  o f task,  nature  of  memory,  as such,  the s p e c i f i c  for  importance  (such as a l e t t e r , house keys,  example,  of  the  that  affects  intention. the  remembering, Factors  perceived  intention  may  but t h e  other  than  pleasantness  influence  or  what  is  remembered. The  f i r s t study was conducted  t o determine  the kinds o f  p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s people experience i n d a i l y  life.  Participants  their  were  asked  t o keep  a memory  diary  of  p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s f o r a p e r i o d of two weeks. g e n e r a l c l a s s e s of memory f a i l u r e s were examined: one  does  intended and  on  a  regular  basis,  t o do, something  something  one intended  something  one intended  one  t o take  t o ask o r t e l l  Four  something planned with  someone.  or  them, The  74  study a l s o examined s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t may i n f l u e n c e those intentions that are forgotten. Study 2 Since memory  participants  failures  reporting bias. or  only,  i n Study  1 were  t h e data  could  asked be  to  report  affected  by  That i s , memory f a i l u r e s t h a t were annoying  embarrassing may have been remembered and r e p o r t e d  more  f r e q u e n t l y than memory f a i l u r e s t h a t d i d not have important consequences has  (Herrmann, 1982; M o r r i s ,  suggested  participants failures. first  one  about  can  specific,  Therefore,  study,  reduce  based  a memory  1984).  this  Morris by  asking  than  general,  memory  on i n f o r m a t i o n  reported  i n the  assessed  memory  rather  questionnaire  bias  (1984)  that  f a i l u r e s f o r s p e c i f i c types o f i n t e n t i o n s was developed. addition  to providing  study a l s o  a replication  of Study  1, the second  examined the frequency with which v a r i o u s  of memory f a i l u r e s occurred  In  types  d u r i n g a one-week p e r i o d .  Study 3 While prospective study  was  perceive  the f i r s t memory  failures  concerned  t h e i r memory.  modeled a f t e r  two s t u d i e s  with  people how  Dixon and Hultsch's  of t h e i r  on the type o f  experience,  adults  at  ages  t h a t was  (1983a, 1983b) Metamemory  was developed t o assess people's  memory  a b i l i t y t o remember intended  the t h i r d  different  A metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  i n Adulthood Questionnaire, perceptions  focused  abilities, actions.  particularly  their  75  An  individual's  ability  presumably  perform  influenced  by b e l i e f s  in  everyday  Herrmann, 1987;  them) may,  1984;  memory  individual good.  who  that  his  or  her  s t r a t e g i e s may Although  designed  that i f an  is  several  t o remember 1985;  e t a l . , 1980).  her  be  Mateer e t a l . ,  be  used  For  by  an  memory  i s extremely  expects  or p e r c e i v e s  declining  with  age,  memory  frequently.  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s have  head  H a r r i s & Baddeley,  least,  r e s e a r c h e r s have developed metamemory  these  in  (and  Hertzog,  1984;  individual  memory  &  rarely  h i s or  t o assess everyday  particularly  Dixon  Zelinski may  be used q u i t e  questionnaires,  memory f u n c t i o n i n g  injury  1984;  typically  patients  been  in general,  (e.g.  Sunderland,  Sunderland, H a r r i s & Gleave,  1984).  a review of many of these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , see Herrmann  (1982,  1984).  related  to  distinguished (e.g.  A  number  of  prospective from  those  these  memory, that  Dobbs  and  Rule  several  was  used  First,  but  contain  these  are  more g e n e r a l  Perlmutter,  items not issues  1978).  e x c e p t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s t r u c t e d and  contains not  measures  address  Herrmann & N e i s s e r , 1978; One  by  (Hultsch,  M a r t i n & Jones,  feels  intentions  h i s or her a b i l i t y  strategies  Conversely,  remember  t o some extent a t  see a l s o H u l i c k a , 1982;  example,  For  about  situations  1982,  to  the  in  (1987).  items the  author  Although  relating present wanted  their  used  questionnaire  t o p r o s p e c t i v e memory, i t research to  for  develop  two a  reasons. metamemory  76  questionnaire  that  assessed  people's  a t t i t u d e s towards, t h e i r memory.  beliefs  about,  and  I t has been suggested t h a t  people's p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r own memory may change with age and  t h a t people's p e r c e p t i o n s  may  be j u s t  as important  Dixon fie H u l t s c h ,  i t addressed  memory problems perceptions reliable  as t h e i r  1983b; H u l t s c h  Rule's q u e s t i o n n a i r e since  o f t h e i r own memory  seemed  actual  a b i l i t i e s (e.g.  e t a l . , 1985).  inappropriate  t h e types  Dobbs and  for this  and p e r c e i v e d  purpose  s e r i o u s n e s s of  f o r a number o f memory tasks,  per se.  abilities  rather  than  Second, the author wanted t o develop a  measure t h a t would be s e n s i t i v e  to d i f f e r e n c e s i n  s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n of age and that c o u l d be used i n c o n j u n c t i o n with o b j e c t i v e measures of memory performance on a number o f tasks (1987)  do  not  questionnaire.  (see S t u d i e s 4 and 5 ) .  report  Moreover,  psychometric  Dobbs and Rule  data  for  no age d i f f e r e n c e s were  their  observed  f o r t h e p r o s p e c t i v e memory q u e s t i o n s . One  questionnaire  perceptions is  Dixon  Adulthood both  does  and  Hultsch's  Questionnaire. and  not  contain  prospective  memory. the  (1983a, Although  sensitive  inappropriate  construct  does  examine  people's  about t h e i r memory f u n c t i o n i n g i n everyday  reliable  deemed  that  1983b) this  items  in  questionnaire  is  purposes  pertaining  Nevertheless,  questionnaire  Metamemory  t o age d i f f e r e n c e s ,  f o r the present  i t was  because i t  specifically  the methods  described  life  i n Study  used 3  to to were  77  similar  t o those  surprisingly,  used  by  Dixon  and H u l t s c h .  Thus, not  the r e s u l t i n g Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  to t h e Metamemory i n Adulthood  i s similar  Questionnaire.  S t u d i e s 4 and 5 S t u d i e s 4 and 5 examined t h e t h r e e q u e s t i o n s in  detail  earlier.  Namely,  whether  discussed  prospective  and  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures a r e c o r r e l a t e d , whether report  and o b j e c t i v e  related,  of prospective  memory a r e  and whether p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance v a r i e s  across  the adult  report  measures  well  measures  self-  as  life  span.  developed  behavioral  Both  s t u d i e s used  i n the f i r s t  measures  of  three  the s e l f -  s t u d i e s , as  prospective  memory  and  o b j e c t i v e measures of r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory. In the  order  t o allow  behavioral  mailing  comparisons  with  previous  involved  making  phone  measures  materials.  In a d d i t i o n ,  prospective  studies, calls  and  memory  was  assessed by asking p a r t i c i p a n t s t o complete s e v e r a l t a s k s i n a  specified  1988).  ( c f . Dobbs  A semi-structured  information why  manner  the  retrospective  was  memory  1987; West, 1984,  i n t e r v i e w t h a t assessed memory f o r  about t h e study study  & Rule,  (e.g. the experimenter's  being  conducted)  measure  i n Study  name,  constituted 4.  In  Study  the 5,  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory was assessed u s i n g a number of standard l a b o r a t o r y tasks i n a d d i t i o n t o the i n t e r v i e w . Study 4 was conducted t o determine how a d u l t s l i v i n g i n the  community  use  their  memories  everyday.  This  was  78  primarily  a d i a r y study; p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  d a i l y d i a r y f o r a p e r i o d of four weeks.  As  t o keep a  i n Study 1,  diaries  assessed memory f o r intended  Meacham  and  Kushner  (1980) have noted t h a t memories f o r i n t e n t i o n s  can  be  divided  could  into  three  remember about  Second, a person may and  for  out  an  whatever  carried  out  the  planned  remembered) .  record  In Study 4,  individual  carry  the  record  completed  on  i t , and  the  suggest  the  the  that  the  action  contrast fourth  to study  proportion Study The  the  time.  as  well  should first  was  not  individual  the  intention  type of i n f o r m a t i o n  recorded  as  study, a  planned  to  they remembered t o  do  were  those been the  to  i s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were  that  have  provides  That  on  eventually,  intention  that  only  of whether or not  intentions  time,  out.  though, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  appropriate  to  it  could plan  a l l unique or unusual i n t e n t i o n s they had  them at  after  that  activity,  T h i s was  perform, r e g a r d l e s s  asked  to  and  T h i r d , one  f o r g e t about  not  ,an  something, f o r g e t about i t ,  remember  is  First,  activity  p l a n t o do  activity,  (This  i n Study 1.  4.  a planned  reason,  satisfied.  was  categories.  never remember about i t again.  carrying  actions.  the  that  remembered were  remembered  performed. procedure  baseline  Thus,  used  against  and  in  which  in the the  of f o r g o t t e n i n t e n t i o n s can be measured. 5 involved  primary  focus  between p r o s p e c t i v e  and  a replication of  this  and  study  extension  was  on  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory.  the To  of  Study  relation accomplish  79  t h i s , performance on s e v e r a l l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s of memory remembering prose, was  compared  a list  with  of words, a sequence of  performance  on  both  (e.g  numbers)  self-report  and  research.  The  s t u d i e s were conducted, e i t h e r i n whole or i n p a r t , as  field  b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory. This  d i s s e r t a t i o n presents  investigations.  As  of  control  experimental  a result,  exploratory  the  somewhat  reader may  find  disconcerting.  the  lack  However,  given t h a t much of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e may  be l i m i t e d by  the  the  number  procedures  and  types  employed,  participants, investigations  it that  sources of b i a s be t h i s manner c r e a t e d  of and  tasks by  was reduced  used,  the  or  of  essential  eliminated  these  Conducting  the  some d i f f i c u l t i e s ,  specific  range(s)  considered  c a r r i e d out.  several interesting findings.  age  by  but  that  potential  research  i t also  the  in  provided  80 STUDY 1 The types  first  study  was a p i l o t  study  o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s  explored memory  some o f the f a c t o r s  that  that  people may  examined t h e  experience and  affect  prospective  performance. Method  Participants Eight between  graduate  22  and  students  33  years  participated i n this  (four  of  age  males, (mean  four  age  females)  28.0  years)  investigation.  M a t e r i a l s and Procedure Participants prospective asked  memory.  t o keep  consisted  of  "information available asked  They  a  set  (diary)  that  were  of  given  f o r those  who  needed  they  1984;  Ellis,  1988;  weeks. and  them.  had intended Reason  &  that  was  diary The  14  diary  remembered  on and  diary  identical pages were  Participants  were  i n as much  they had not  to (cf. Crovitz  Mycielska,  thus c o n s t i t u t e d  failure  a study  one of the i n f o r m a t i o n sheets  something  sheet  was  a memory  Additional  as p o s s i b l e every time they  completed  this  instructions  sheets".  done  memory  informed  i t f o r two c o n s e c u t i v e  t o complete  detail  were  et a l . ,  1982).  Each  a r e c o r d of a p r o s p e c t i v e  remembered  and  subsequently  reported. Each i n f o r m a t i o n sheet c o n s i s t e d o f (see order  Appendix A) t h a t can be grouped to  examine  the  types  of  11 s p e c i f i c  as f o l l o w s . memory  items  First, in  failures  people  81  experience classified  and  to  determine  i t into  were:  (event)  one o f f i v e  (a) something  something  these  could  i n a meaningful manner, p a r t i c i p a n t s were  to s p e c i f y the a c t i v i t y classify  whether  they  be  asked  they had f o r g o t t e n and then categories.  d i d on a  The c a t e g o r i e s  regular  basis;  (b)  they s a i d they would do o r t h a t they had planned  t o do; (c) something they had planned t o take with them; (d) something  they intended t o t e l l  someone; o r (e) some other  category d e f i n e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t . based  on f i n d i n g s  memory f a i l u r e s 1984;  Reason, Second,  important examine  noted  component  cited  everyday  i n Harris,  t o when  i n the Introduction,  time  i s an  o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance.  variable's  to indicate  relative  on  1979).  measures r e l a t i n g asked  c a t e g o r i e s were  r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e  (e.g. H a r r i s & Sunderland,  as  this  These  influence  i n greater detail,  t o time were assessed. P a r t i c i p a n t s when  they  i t should  remembered have  been  about  an  performed  To two were  activity (relative  time).  T h i s measure examined whether t h e r e i s a time frame  within  which  Participants  forgotten were  also  intentions asked  to  will  be  indicate  a t what  d u r i n g the day they remembered the i n t e n t i o n . examined whether t h e r e i s a p a r t i c u l a r (perhaps a time d u r i n g which activities forgotten  one  point  T h i s measure d u r i n g the day  one can r e f l e c t  f o r the day) when intentions.  time  remembered.  i s likely  on h i s or her t o remember  82  T h i r d , based (1980),  i t was  forgotten  on f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by Meacham & Kushner  thought  because  that  i t was  an  intended  perceived  as  action being  could  be  unimportant  and/or unpleasant.  To examine t h i s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  to  rating  complete  four  assessed  the  importance  activity  that  had  the  importance  activity vs.  been  and  scales. and  Two  pleasantness  forgotten.  The  pleasantness  (e.g. making  of  a phone c a l l  making phone c a l l s  The  of  scales  the  specific  other two  assessed  the  in general).  important t o very important.  these  general  type  to a p a r t i c u l a r  were done on, f o u r - p o i n t s c a l e s t h a t  The  importance  ranged  from  of  friend ratings  not  at a l l  pleasantness r a t i n g s were  done on seven-point s c a l e s t h a t ranged to  of  from v e r y  unpleasant  very p l e a s a n t . Fourth,  interest 1978,  the  use  of  memory  aids  has  received  i n the p r o s p e c t i v e memory l i t e r a t u r e  1980;  Meacham  &  1984) .  To  K r e u t z e r et a l . , 1975; Dumitru,  1976;  examine the  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  (e.g. H a r r i s ,  Meacham & Colombo,  West,  memory a i d s i n t h i s  study,  t o i n d i c a t e whether they had  used a  of  &  memory a i d t o remember the p a r t i c u l a r  Leiman,  1980;  1982;  use  Meacham  much  activity  and,  i f so,  whether they had used an i n t e r n a l a i d such as r e h e a r s i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n , or an e x t e r n a l a i d such as a w r i t t e n note. F i n a l l y , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to s p e c u l a t e about they may  have f o r g o t t e n about  the event and  a d d i t i o n a l comments they f e l t were r e l e v a n t .  to provide  why any  83  In summary, the the  types  and  to  first  of p r o s p e c t i v e examine  some  p r o s p e c t i v e memory. (a)  Do  the  activity, for  i f not  reported  at  or  are  (b) Are  was  conducted t o determine  memory f a i l u r e s  of  the  people  factors  that  Five s p e c i f i c questions  categories  something  most,  needed?  four  study  one  of  activities  intended  a l l , of  the  additional  to  may  tell  affect  were examined: (e.g.  a  regular  someone)  account  memory  failures  prospective (or  experience  alternative)  categories  p a r t i c i p a n t s more aware of memory  failures  c e r t a i n times of the day than at other times? (c) Are  r e p o r t e d p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s type  of  intentions  importance  and  with  s i m i l a r to the  respect  pleasantness?  (d)  to Is  their  the  the  general  perceived  length  of  time  between when an a c t i v i t y should have been completed and when i t was  remembered r e l a t e d to the p e r c e i v e d  pleasantness memory  of  aid  pleasantness  the  related  intention? to  of the reported  the  14)  were  (e)  Is  perceived  the  Males  The  means were not  a or  Discussion  reported  a  total  (mean = 5.25); females reported a t o t a l of 35 items.  of  importance  of 56 p r o s p e c t i v e memory f a i l u r e s  reported.  use  activity?  R e s u l t s and A total  and  importance and/or  significantly  (range 2 t o of  21  (mean =  different,  items 8.75) t(6)  =  1.43. The studies  number of e n t r i e s i s small (e.g.  Ellis,  1988;  West,  compared to other d i a r y  1984).  This  is  probably  84  due, to  i n part, report  t o the type of items p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  ( i . e . memory  remembered  and  study) .  As  failures  forgotten  i n any  reported  wishing  to  a  they  had  activity.  Further,  the number  number of  study,  also  be  as  to  to  t o both 1988,  o f memory  participants failure  do  although the number  of diary  number  memory  intended  opposed  in Ellis',  the  due  particular  t h i s study i s q u i t e small, for  as  activities  diary  may  report  remembering  f a i l u r e s only  some  or  not never  particular  of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n  t h i s alone i s u n l i k e l y t o account  entries  since  Ellis  used a s i m i l a r  volunteers.  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the memory f a i l u r e s One o f t h e main questions o f i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study was whether a f o u r - c a t e g o r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to  account  examine  f o r the majority  this,  participants  t h e i r prospective categories:  of  system could  the d i a r y  were asked  be used  entries.  to c l a s s i f y  To  each of  memory f a i l u r e s i n t o one of the f o l l o w i n g  (a) something they d i d on a r e g u l a r  something they s a i d they would do o r t h a t  basis;  (b)  they had planned  to so; (c) something they had planned t o take with them; (d) something they  intended t o t e l l  someone; o r (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  Two a l t e r n a t i v e approaches were c o n s i d e r e d , but n e i t h e r p r o v i d e d much information about the e n t r i e s . For example, t h e approach used by Meacham and Kushner (1980) d i d little more than divide the e n t r i e s into descriptive c a t e g o r i e s such as "write or mail something", "take someone something" and "get something". The step v s . pulse distinction proposed by Ellis (1988) also seemed 4  85  All first  of the e n t r i e s c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d  four  categories.  categorized were  5  Of the 56 items reported,  as "Something  classified  as  i n t o one o f the  you do on  "Something  you  a regular said  you  9 were  basis",  would  do  36 or  planned t o do", 6 were c a t e g o r i z e d as "Something you planned t o take with intended  to  you", and 5 were c l a s s i f i e d tell  someone".  These  s i g n i f i c a n t , x (3) = 46.72, p_ < .001. based  on  the number  of responses  as "Something you differences  were  As might be expected  i n each  category,  more  items were c l a s s i f i e d as "Something you s a i d you would do or planned t o do" than i n the other three c a t e g o r i e s x (1) = 46. 09, 2  p_ < . 001.  Although the four c a t e g o r i e s the  items  combined,  p a r t i c i p a n t s reported,  could  account  one d i f f i c u l t y  f o r a l l of with  this  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r type of i n t e n t i o n was  not  always  classified  i n the  same  category.  For  u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s i n c e i t was o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o determine whether an entry was an example of a p u l s e , a step, or something e l s e . N e i t h e r of these approaches were considered further. Three of the items r e p o r t e d 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 r e p o r t e d and on the category l a b e l s used by the p a r t i c i p a n t s , these items were r e - c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o one of the other c a t e g o r i e s . The three items were: (a) l e f t a (water) tap running unattended, which was c a t e g o r i z e d as "Something I usually do without much thought or p l a n n i n g " and r e - c a t e g o r i z e d as "Something you do on a r e g u l a r b a s i s " ; (b) buy Comet detergent, which was categorized as "Something I had intended t o buy" and r e - c a t e g o r i z e d as "Something you s a i d you would do or planned t o do"; and (c) get a form f i l l e d out, which was c a t e g o r i z e d as "Something I had t o do" and r e - c a t e g o r i z e d as "Something you s a i d you would do or planned t o do". 5  :  86  example, a phone c a l l had  c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d  as something  one  s a i d they would do or t h a t they had planned t o do, but  depending  on the nature of t h e phone c a l l ,  c l a s s i f i e d as something the  c a t e g o r i e s do  particular  i t c o u l d a l s o be  one intended t o t e l l someone.  not  simply  intention;  reflect  they  may  p a r t i c i p a n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of t h a t  the  nature  also  Thus, of  reflect  a  the  activity.  Measures r e l a t i n g t o time Since time i s an important component of t a s k s i n v o l v i n g prospective assessed. time and  memory,  two  The f i r s t  between when an when  i t was  participants  measures  examined r e l a t i v e intention  remembered.  were  relating  likely  to  time,  time  that  should have been The  second  t o remember  were  i s , the completed  examined whether  forgotten  intentions  more a t c e r t a i n times of day than a t other times. Relative  time  varied  from  "at  the  time"  (for  remembering where the p a r t i c i p a n t was t o phone) t o "months" (for  remembering  conference).  to  write  f o r two  something  individuals  else"  items  were  i n t o seven time p e r i o d s . too vague  and "when saw  item")  remaining 54 items were c l a s s i f i e d  ("when  between 10 and 30 minutes  18  later,  later,  5 items were  found  as f o l l o w s .  10 minutes,  3 hours  at  a  Relative i t with  to categorize.  were remembered w i t h i n the f i r s t  and  met  In order t o examine the data more thoroughly,  the items were c l a s s i f i e d times  to  Eight  The items  7 were r e c a l l e d  were r e c a l l e d between 1  remembered  sometime  later  87  the same day, 8 items were remembered the next day, another 2 items were remembered w i t h i n the week, and the remaining 6 items  were  latter The  remembered  s i x items,  other  more.  five  more  than  only one was  items  one week  later.  Of t h e  remembered w i t h i n  2 weeks.  were not remembered  f o r 2 months o r  S i g n i f i c a n t l y more items (68%) were remembered w i t h i n  the same day than were remembered l a t e r ,  x ( l ) = 8.96, p_ < 2  . 01. The  second  participants day.  measure  remembered  Times v a r i e d  relating their  to  memory  from 8:30 a.m.  time  examined  failures  when  d u r i n g the  t o 12:00 midnight.  Data  were not p r o v i d e d  f o r t h r e e of the items.  The  items were d i v i d e d  i n t o three time p e r i o d s :  (a) 6:00  a.m.  and c) 6:01  p.m.  to 12:00 noon; (b) 12:01 p.m. t o 6:00 p.m.; t o midnight. and  Fifteen  items were remembered  i n t h e evening; the remaining  during  the  significant.  afternoon.  remaining  i n the morning  2 3 items were remembered  These  differences  were  not  Thus, on the b a s i s o f these data, i t does not  seem t h a t memory f a i l u r e s are l i k e l y  t o be r e c a l l e d more a t  c e r t a i n times o f the day than a t other times may be i n d i v i d u a l  (although t h e r e  differences).  Importance and pleasantness r a t i n g s It  is  possible  than  the  perceived  importance  or  p l e a s a n t n e s s o f an i n t e n t i o n might a f f e c t i t s tendency t o be forgotten. importance  To examine t h i s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o g i v e and pleasantness r a t i n g s ,  both  f o r the s p e c i f i c  88  activity  that  had  been  forgotten  and  f o r the  type  of  a c t i v i t y i n general. The  mean r a t i n g s  f o r importance  o f both  0.75)  =  2.70  and  0.69),  (sd =  correspond t o r a t i n g s of s l i g h t l y The  mean  ratings  =  1.06)  and  respectively.  t o moderately  f o r pleasantness  i n t e n t i o n and the type of a c t i v i t y 4.05  (sd  correspond t o n e u t r a l  =  of  both  similar  as being  activities,  important.  the  1.07),  important  but because  reported  respectively.  on the pleasantness s c a l e .  less  These  i n g e n e r a l were 4.13 (sd  r e p o r t e d a c t i v i t i e s may have been f o r g o t t e n were seen  forgotten  i n g e n e r a l were 2.73  i n t e n t i o n and f o r the type of a c t i v i t y (sd  the  These Thus, the  not because they  or more unpleasant  they  were  than  not d i s t i n c t i v e  ( c f . Meacham & Kushner, 1980) . To  determine  whether  ratings  of  importance  p l e a s a n t n e s s were r e l a t e d  f o r both  the s p e c i f i c  that  f o r the  type  were  general,  Spearman  computed. and  and rank  correlation  Ratings of importance  ratings  general .001.  forgotten  were  of  importance  of  and  intentions  intentions  coefficients  in were  f o r the s p e c i f i c i n t e n t i o n  f o r that  type  s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated,  of  r (54) s  activity =  in  .79, p_ <  Ratings of pleasantness f o r the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y and  r a t i n g s of p l e a s a n t n e s s f o r the type of i n t e n t i o n i n general were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d , However, the  r (54) s  no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s  importance  and  pleasantness  = .88, p < .001.  were o b t a i n e d between  ratings  either  f o r the  89  specific  i n t e n t i o n or f o r the type of i n t e n t i o n i n  These r e s u l t s  suggest t h a t  the  p l e a s a n t n e s s of an event may (cf. K v a v i l a s h v i l i , Intuitively, being  account f o r why  and/or  i t i s forgotten  Meacham & Kushner, 1980). as  q u i t e important or pleasant might be remembered w i t h i n  being  None of of  importance  i t would seem t h a t i n t e n t i o n s p e r c e i v e d  a shorter period as  1987;  perceived  general.  of time than those t h a t  important the  pleasant.  This  was  c o r r e l a t i o n s between r e l a t i v e  importance  intention  or  are  and  that  pleasantness  was  forgotten  (both and  not  perceived  not  observed.  time and for  for  the  the  ratings specific  activity  in  general) were s i g n i f i c a n t . Use  of memory a i d s Many s t u d i e s  examined aids  the  are  1980;  extent  used  to  Kreutzer  Meacham  &  1984) .  In t h i s  were used  items. .001. leaving  et  using  memory l i t e r a t u r e have  which e x t e r n a l  al., 1976;  and  intentions  1980;  (e.g.  Meacham  Meacham  &  internal  &  memory  Harris,  1978,  Colombo,  1980;  Leiman,  1982;  West,  study, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to note,  memory f a i l u r e , whether they had  remember t h e i r  reported  to  prospective  remember  Dumitru,  each r e p o r t e d  aids  i n the  i n t e n t i o n using any for  22  of  the  56  attempted  type of mnemonic. items  reported.  more memory aids than males, 19  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was  significant,  for to  Memory Females,  items vs.  x ( l ) = 11.64, 2  3  p_ <  Females used e x t e r n a l a i d s such as w r i t i n g a note or an  object  where  i t would  be  seen  for  12  of  the  90  items.  I n t e r n a l a i d s such as r e h e a r s i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n o r  making a mental note, were used f o r t h e other 7 a c t i v i t i e s . Males r e p o r t e d using e x t e r n a l a i d s f o r two o f t h e items. The  use o f memory a i d s was not c o r r e l a t e d e i t h e r w i t h  the importance o f the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y t h a t was f o r g o t t e n or with In  t h e importance of the type  contrast,  of the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y t h a t was  f o r g o t t e n and t o the pleasantness  .002. <  i n general.  t h e use of memory a i d s was i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d  both t o t h e pleasantness  general.  of a c t i v i t y  F o r the p a r t i c u l a r  o f t h e type o f a c t i v i t y i n  event,  r (54) =  -.39, p_ <  s  For t h e type of event i n g e n e r a l , r ( 5 4 ) =  -.38, p  s  .002.  perceived  These  results  pleasantness  suggest  that  the  of an event, t h e l e s s  greater likely  the  one i s  to use a memory a i d . Explanations In failure  f o r f o r g e t t i n g and remembering  addition and  rating  pleasantness, may  have  to  i t with  forgotten  involved  talking other  to carry  prospective  respect  to  and  t o i n d i c a t e why  they  out t h e i r  planned  and being  busy sick  with,  and  Half of  a phone  or thinking  ( c f . Reason,  e x p l a n a t i o n s , which d i d not seem t o belong category,  activity.  f o r 22 o f t h e 56 e n t r i e s .  being  memory  importance  d i s t r a c t i o n s o f some k i n d :  t o someone; things;  the  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  Reasons were provided these  specifying  1979).  call; about, Other  t o any p a r t i c u l a r  i n c l u d e d reasons such as t h e i n t e n t i o n was b o r i n g  unrewarding, the i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d not complete t h e task  91  at an e a r l i e r time  (and  then subsequently f o r g o t 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 . of t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s i n v o l v e d  failing  Only two  t o use an a p p r o p r i a t e  reminder. Explanations  for  why  the  forgotten  events  remembered were p r o v i d e d f o r 16 of t h e 56 items. r e p o r t e d e q u a l l y o f t e n by males and females. frequently  were  These were  The reminders  i n v o l v e d encountering an o b j e c t o r an i n d i v i d u a l  (or a r e f e r e n c e t o an i n d i v i d u a l ) which was r e l e v a n t t o the forgotten provided  intention. by  In some i n s t a n c e s , t h e reminder  another  individual,  f o r example,  by  was  a phone  call. Summary This  study  examined  the types  o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory  f a i l u r e s people experience and some o f t h e f a c t o r s t h a t may affect  why  findings  memory were  classification  failures  observed. system  t h e same  Several  First,  a  was able t o account  r e p o r t e d memory f a i l u r e s . remembered  occur.  interesting  four-category f o r a l l o f the  Second, most memory f a i l u r e s were  day, as opposed  t o being  e i t h e r t h e next day or s e v e r a l days l a t e r .  remembered  Third,  although  i t had been expected t h a t there may be a p a r t i c u l a r time of day  d u r i n g which  participants  be l i k e l y  was not observed.  t o remember  forgotten  intentions,  expected,  t h e r e p o r t e d memory f a i l u r e s were s i m i l a r  general  this  would  type o f i n t e n t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o both  Fourth, as t o the  importance  92  and  pleasantness  ratings.  Fifth,  although  i t had  been  expected t h a t the time between when an i n t e n t i o n should have been  completed  time)  may  be  pleasantness Sixth, be  and when related  of  remembered  t o the perceived  the  intention,  this  (i.e.  relative  importance was  not  and/or  observed.  i t was expected t h a t t h e use o f memory a i d s may a l s o  related  t o the p e r c e i v e d  the  forgotten  use  o f memory aids  intention,  influence aids  failures  intention.  importance  This  was r e l a t e d  but not t o  intention.  more  i t was  Seventh,  and p l e a s a n t n e s s of  was p a r t i a l l y  supported: the  t o the pleasantness  the p e r c e i v e d  the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  importance gender  o f the o f the  appeared t o  whether memory a i d s were used, with females u s i n g than  males.  occurred  Finally,  although  when p a r t i c i p a n t s  were  several  memory  distracted,  many  were a l s o remembered when p a r t i c i p a n t s encountered an o b j e c t or an i n d i v i d u a l r e l e v a n t  t o the f o r g o t t e n  f i n d i n g s were examined i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l  intention.  i n Study 2.  These  93 STUDY 2 In  Study  1, p a r t i c i p a n t s  f a i l u r e s only. by  reporting  failures  than  consequences  participants  been  those  that  to  not  failures  reported have  important  M o r r i s (1984) by a s k i n g  general  memory  t h e second  study  involved  asking  a  questionnaire types  that  assessed  of i n t e n t i o n s .  from those r e p o r t e d i n Study  the i n v e s t i g a t o r .  more  than  for specific  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s of everyday  memory  rather  complete  i n t e n t i o n s were chosen  by  did  and  b i a s e s can be reduced  specific  Consequently,  memory  or embarrassing  remembered that  these  about  participants memory  annoying  (Herrmann, 1982; M o r r i s , 1984).  suggested  failures.  have  to report  t h e data may have been a f f e c t e d  biases since  may  frequently  has  As a r e s u l t ,  were asked  memory, and from items  Study  2 also  These 1,  from  generated  examined the frequency  with which the v a r i o u s i n t e n t i o n s were f o r g o t t e n . Method Participants E i g h t y - e i g h t second year Psychology students (31 males, 57  females)  They  ranged  participated i n age  i n the study  from  18  t o 36  f o r course  years  (mean  credit. age 20.7  years). Materials Participants questionnaire  that  were  asked  focused  on  to  complete  activities  f o r g o t t e n d u r i n g the p r e v i o u s week.  a they  The s p e c i f i c  seven  page  may  have  activities  94  were based  on  intentions  r e p o r t e d i n Study  1,  items  chosen  from v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s of everyday memory, and items of i n t e r e s t t o the i n v e s t i g a t o r . composed of seven s e c t i o n s , minutes t o complete The  first  section carry  asked out  brushing  planned out  involved  developed  participants  in  whether  they  action  and  or  combing  hair,  brushing  t o do  t o do,  2 asked  something and  four-category  1. had  included  The  first  forgotten items  teeth,  to  such  and  as  taking  p a r t i c i p a n t s whether they  they  included  the  Study  routine  Section  was  B).  a  medication. forgotten  sections  system  q u e s t i o n n a i r e , which  r e q u i r e d approximately 20 t o 30  (see Appendix  four  classification  The  said  they  would  do  items such as t a k i n g  had  or  had  something  of the oven or o f f the stove, keeping an appointment  making a phone c a l l .  The  third  s e c t i o n asked  and  participants  whether they had f o r g o t t e n to take something with them, such as  keys,  asked  directions,  participants  someone  something,  or  an  umbrella.  whether and  they  included  Finally,  had  forgotten  items  such  telephone message or t e l l i n g  someone about  Participants  t o add  were encouraged  Section  as  to  tell  relaying  a social  items w i t h i n  4  a  event. each  of  these s e c t i o n s . Participants  were asked  to  indicate  whether  f o r g o t t e n each item w i t h i n the p r e v i o u s week and, frequently. that  ranged  Frequency was from  1  to  they  had  i f so,  how  assessed u s i n g a f i v e - p o i n t 2  times  to  more  than  10  scale times.  95  Participants item  also  rated  using a four-point  the importance scale that  o f each  ranged  from  forgotten not a t a l l  important t o very important. In  the f i f t h s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , p a r t i c i p a n t s  were asked  to l i s t  anything e l s e they had f o r g o t t e n d u r i n g  the preceding week t h a t they f e l t the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s . were asked  about  of  memory  a i d to  forgotten.  In the s i x t h  the type  a i d s they normally used,  section,  of internal  i n t o one o f participants  and e x t e r n a l  memory  and whether they had used any type  remember  In t h e l a s t  d i d not f a l l  things  they  had  previously  s e c t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o  i n d i c a t e t h e i r age and gender. Procedure Participants  were  c l a s s , asked t o complete at  t h e next  class.  given  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e d u r i n g one  i t on t h e i r own time, and r e t u r n i t  For most  students, t h i s  l a t e r , although f o r some, i t was four days. were t o l d  was two days  The respondents  t h a t t h i s was a study on p r o s p e c t i v e memory.  was s t r e s s e d  t h a t they were t o use the past week as a time  frame f o r responding t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items. also  It  encouraged  t o add any items  they  They were  had f o r g o t t e n but  which were not i n c l u d e d on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and they were reminded  t o p r o v i d e frequency and importance  these items.  information f o r  Predictions Based  on  predictions  the  results  were made.  obtained  First,  more items would be f o r g o t t e n things  one intended  other  categories.  particular  item  twice during  would  more  participant  may  Third,  than  1980).  In Study  could  have p a r t i a l l y ( i . e . 56).  participants, first  it  was  memory external  i t was forgotten  more than  any  once o r  the  few  times  during rather  that  than  forgotten  t o moderately  In Study at  2,  least  items  i n t e n t i o n s were  important,  (29  but t h i s  number  the number 2552  items  females would r e p o r t  X  88  i n the  number of  not be obtained.  i t was  o f data  of p o t e n t i a l  I f the r e s u l t s obtained  Finally,  would  & Kushner,  a consequence of a small  hypothesized t h a t males.  forgetting.  ( c f . Meacham  been due t o the small  was  that  the week,  see below).  than  expected  a  s i m i l a r r e s u l t s should  aids  i n any o f t h e  was  study were simply  instances,  that  i f an item  slightly  failures  hypothesized  1, most o f the f o r g o t t e n  as being  memory  five  t o do) than  as unimportant  rated  points  1,  i t was assumed t h a t  hypothesized  be r a t e d  Study  i n the second category ( i . e .  be p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g  i t was  generally  not be  the week;  "forgotten"  i t was  or planned Second,  in  Fourth,  using  more  expected  that  memory a i d s would be used more than i n t e r n a l ones  (see a l s o H a r r i s , 1978; 1980). Results  97  The  results  from each  be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t a i l of  memory a i d s  of the f i r s t  first.  five  sections  An assessment  the students used  will  of the types  and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f  these a i d s w i l l then be presented. Number of memory A total these The  failures  o f 885 memory f a i l u r e s  were responses  additional  86  were r e p o r t e d ; 799 of  t o the s p e c i f i c  items  (15  of  q u e s t i o n n a i r e items.  which  were  S e c t i o n 5) were added by 43 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  included  in  Fourteen of these  items were l i s t e d as an a d d i t i o n i n one s e c t i o n but appeared elsewhere  on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  c a t e g o r i z e d by two independent between  the judges  Items t h a t both  Seventy-seven appeared into  kappa  of  72  items  Amount of agreement =  .89  (Cohen,  1960). by  d i s a g r e e d , by one o f the  i n d i v i d u a l ) were added t o t h a t the  were  as b e l o n g i n g t o one s e c t i o n  (or where the judges  and a t h i r d  other  judges.  91.7%,  were c l a s s i f i e d  judges  judges  was  The  additions  (including  the  section. 14  that  elsewhere on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d  one of the f i r s t  four  sections  on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  Nine a d d i t i o n s seemed t o be concerned p r i m a r i l y with f a i l i n g to  remember  located).  questionnaire the  information  (e.g. where  things  were  These items were not c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r .  Separate  plus  specific  analyses  of  items only  additional  the  specific  responses  (n = 799), and of these  items  (n  =  876),  revealed  t o the responses similar  98  patterns  of  results.  Only  the  findings  of  the  latter  (14.0%)  memory  a n a l y s i s are presented. Types  o f responses.  A  failures  occurred  i n Section  regular  basis);  423  total 1  of  (activities  (48.3%)  i n Section  3  (something  intended  were  to t e l l  significantly  conducted, expected  using  someone).  in  a chi-squared  f o r each  t o c a l c u l a t e the  section.  The  p o t e n t i a l number f o r S e c t i o n 1 was 4 s p e c i f i c X 88 p a r t i c i p a n t s +  Section  2  the  potential  23  additions  number  values  a n a l y s i s was  number  p o t e n t i a l responses i n each s e c t i o n was d i f f e r e n t  items  t o take  i n S e c t i o n 4 (something  t h e f o l l o w i n g procedure  frequencies  2  t o d o ) ; 189 (21.6%)  To determine i f these  different,  on a  Section  one had intended  with them); and 141 (16.1%) occurred one  one does  occurred  ( a c t i v i t i e s one had planned o r intended occurred  123  =  was  the  questionnaire  375  15  p a r t i c i p a n t s + 25 a d d i t i o n s = 1345 i t e m s ) .  (e.g.  of  items; f o r  items  X  88  Therefore, f o r  each s e c t i o n , the t o t a l number of p o t e n t i a l responses on the questionnaire  was  divided  responses f o r t h a t s e c t i o n . by  the t o t a l  expected  number  frequency.  by  the  number  of  potential  T h i s value was then m u l t i p l i e d  of  actual  Using  this  responses procedure,  to  obtain  the  the d i f f e r e n c e s  2  were not s i g n i f i c a n t , x (3) = 5.80, p > .05. I t was hypothesized,  on the b a s i s o f f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d  i n Study 1, t h a t t h e number o f items c l a s s i f i e d  i n Section 2  would be p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y g r e a t e r than the number  classified  99  in  the  other  analysis, above,  conducted  indicated  Instead, Section 4.89,  three  to  using  that  4 than  combined.  the same  more 1,  i n Sections  items 2,  A  chi-squared  procedures  the hypothesis  proportionately  was  described  not  were  supported.  classified  and 3 combined,  in  x (l) = 2  p_ < .05. Frequency data.  644  sections  Of the 876 memory f a i l u r e s  (73.5%) o c c u r r e d 5 times,  28  1 t o 2 times,  (3.2%)  occurred 8 t o 10 times, times.  occurred  reported,  153 (17.5%) o c c u r r e d 3  6 t o 8 times,  4  (0.5%)  and 8 (0.9%) occurred  more than 10  Frequency i n f o r m a t i o n was not provided  f o r 39 (4.4%)  of the items.  More memory f a i l u r e s occurred  once o r twice  than i n the other four c a t e g o r i e s combined, x ( l ) = 243.0, p_ 2  < .001. Importance  ratings.  The mean  importance  ratings for  items  i n each of the four s e c t i o n s were 2.51 (sd = 1.00, n =  116),  2.49 (sd = 1.10, n = 412),  and  2.20  (sd =  0.97, n =  2.67 (sd = 1.13, n = 187),  137), r e s p e c t i v e l y .  exception of S e c t i o n 4, these r a t i n g s correspond to  moderately  important.  S e c t i o n 4 corresponds Use  The mean  to s l i g h t l y  to s l i g h t l y  f o r items  in  important.  o f memory a i d s Based on t h e r e s u l t s obtained  hypothesized than  rating  With the  females.  i n Study 1, i t had been  t h a t males would r e p o r t u s i n g fewer memory a i d s However, a l l of the  females  (n = 57)  and  100  a l l but  four of the  males (n = 27,  87%)  reported  u s i n g some  type of memory a i d . It in  was  Study  a l s o hypothesized  1)  that  internal aids. of the  T h i s was  females and  internal the  external  aids.  males  59%  (again  aids  not  females  and  15%  only.  Overall,  the  72  on  be  the  used  findings more  Seventy-two  than  percent  of the males used both e x t e r n a l  using  of  would  observed.  Fourteen percent  reported  based  of the  external  aids  males reported  students  females and  used  only;  using  external  and  2 6%  14%  of  the  internal aids  of  aids  while  69  students used i n t e r n a l a i d s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to i n d i c a t e how various  types  of  memory  s p e c i f i c aids l i s t e d ,  aids  and,  With reported written  using notes  calendar), do  respect  and  something.  13.08, males memory putting  aids  the  any  Thus, they c o u l d  external  appointment  aids,  diaries,. on  29  others  reported  asking  35  60  (including writing  There was, with  used.  things  f a m i l i a r object  the other  report  one's to  individuals  reported  using  hand,  on  a  remind them  to  or  These d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t ,  females  to  type of mnemonic. to  p < .005. and  addition  they were encouraged to add  ones they used on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . u s i n g more than one  in  o f t e n they used  in a  x^(2)  =  however, no d i f f e r e n c e between  respect  to  the  Additional  aids  visible  specific  or  types  of  included  i n an unusual l o c a t i o n and  place,  external  keeping putting  or a  keeping a j o u r n a l  101  with e n t r i e s o f past events. P u t t i n g t h i n g s where they would be  noticed  was  reported  a i d s were o n l y r e p o r t e d With  respect  by three  p a r t i c i p a n t s ; t h e other  once.  to  the  internal  memory  aids,  p a r t i c i p a n t s used mental notes and 28 used r e h e a r s a l . difference  was  not s i g n i f i c a n t ,  and, as with  40 This  t h e use of  e x t e r n a l a i d s , males and females d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r use of  these  included  mnemonics. trying  information, beat,  t o make  putting  measuring  remembering  Additional a  (funny)  the information  t h e importance  the  internal  number  of  of  items  mental  memory  picture  t o a musical the to  o f the tune or  information,  do  each  day  a d j u s t i n g t h e number with the execution  of each task.  pictures  were  was  reported  twice;  the r e s t  aids  reported  and then Using only  once. Not effective  surprisingly, than  external  i n t e r n a l ones.  memory  aids  were  more  T h i r t y - e i g h t students (45%)  i n d i c a t e d they had f o r g o t t e n a t l e a s t one item t h a t they had t r i e d t o remember u s i n g some type of memory a i d . of  these  p a r t i c i p a n t s . forgot  memory a i d had been used;  items  eight  when  percent  Two-thirds  only  an i n t e r n a l  forgot  items when  both e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l a i d s were used. Discussion The  purpose o f t h i s study was twofold.  was r e p l i c a t e d u s i n g  a questionnaire  rather  First, than  Study 1 a memory  102  diary.  Second, s p e c i f i c r a t h e r than g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s were  asked i n an e f f o r t t o determine whether some memory f a i l u r e s would be r e p o r t e d w i t h one type of measure but not w i t h the other. Based  on  hypotheses  the  were  Specifically,  results  developed,  most  memory  obtained  in  Study  but only  one  was  failures  occurred  1,  five  supported.  only  once or  twice d u r i n g the week under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In c o n t r a s t t o t h e r e s u l t s obtained i n the f i r s t participants information  in  Study  more  2  reported  frequently  than  forgetting  they  to  indicated  may  participants students)  have  been  due  to  i n the two s t u d i e s  and/or  to  specific  rather  questions  in this  the  than  the d i f f e r e n t  These  groups  of  (graduate v s . undergraduate  types  of  general).  study  relay  they had  f o r g o t t e n items i n any o f the other t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . results  study,  may have  questions The  use  reminded  used ( i . e . of  specific  p a r t i c i p a n t s of  intentions  they may not have remembered  on t h e i r  spite  these  the f o u r - c a t e g o r y  of  differences,  however,  scheme developed  i n Study  1 again accounted  memory  failures  reported  i n the second  memory  failures,  using  this  only  system.  nine, items These  could  items  not be  f o r g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r a t h e r than f o r g e t t i n g  In  f o r most o f the  study;  were  own.  out o f 885 classified  concerned  with  intentions.  As was the case i n Study 1, most o f the memory f a i l u r e s reported  were  rated  as  being  slightly  to  moderately  103  important.  Therefore,  intentions,  not  unimportant,  because  but  remembered  some, a l b e i t Intentions  they  because  p a r t i c u l a r l y important. be  i t seems  that are  they  people  perceived are  because  t h e intended  perhaps  little,  importance  a r e perceived  considered  activities  attached  as unimportant  important may r a r e l y be f o r g o t t e n  have  t o them.  may never be as being  very  (and thus would not be not  i n s t u d i e s that emphasize memory f a i l u r e s ) .  The finding  being  In other words, memory f a i l u r e s may  remembered, but a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e p e r c e i v e d  reported  forget  as  not  simply  that  may  fourth observed  hypothesis i n Study  was  based  on  1, namely, t h a t  u s i n g more memory a i d s than males.  an  unexpected  females  reported  The l a c k o f support f o r  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i n Study 2 suggests t h a t t h i s may have been a spurious The  result.  f a c t t h a t the f i f t h hypothesis was not supported i s  somewhat  puzzling.  reported  by H a r r i s  Based (1978,  both  on  Study  1980; see a l s o  1  and  findings  Kreutzer  et a l . ,  1975), i t was expected that p a r t i c i p a n t s would r e p o r t e x t e r n a l memory a i d s more than i n t e r n a l ones. observed;  both  Nevertheless,  types external  of  aids  memory  were aids,  used  T h i s was not  equally  either  using  alone  often. or i n  combination with i n t e r n a l memory a i d s , produced fewer memory failures supporting  than  using  Harris'  internal  (1978,  memory  aids  1980) c o n c l u s i o n  e x t e r n a l a i d s because they are e f f e c t i v e .  only,  thus  t h a t .people use  104  While Studies 1 and 2 were concerned prospective  memory  examined people's  failures  people  perceptions of t h e i r  with t h e types o f  experience, memories,  t h e i r a b i l i t y t o perform p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k s .  Study  3  including  105 STUDY 3 Study  3  involved  questionnaire attitudes existing  that  the  development  examined  towards,  their  people's  memory  abilities.  between The  determine  the  of  questionnaire,  and  to  beliefs  and  the  structure  about,  was  many  explicitly memory  twofold:  reliability  determine  and  Unlike  prospective  study  and  responses v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of  self-report  t h i s measure  everyday  purpose  a  abilities.  metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,  distinguished  of  whether  of  to the  participants'  age.  Method Participants A  total  participated seniors'  of  376  in this  groups,  advertisements  individuals study.  newspaper i n t e r v i e w s .  in  248  females)  local  recreational newspapers,  facilities, and  radio  and from  Educational  level  v a r i e d from grade school to Ph.D., with a mean of 14.6  years  to  (range  88  6  years  to  22  (mean age  years).  participants  through  ranged i n age  18  The  males,  They were r e c r u i t e d  community  placed  (128  48.5  years).  Occupations  also  varied,  and  The sample i n c l u d e d 62 i n d i v i d u a l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Study 4 and 134 who served i n Study 5. These i n d i v i d u a l s were i n c l u d e d here f o r . two reasons. F i r s t , a l l of the p a r t i c i p a n t s had been t r e a t e d i n a s i m i l a r manner t o the p o i n t where the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was completed (e.g. they were r e c r u i t e d i n the same way, asked t o f i l l out a background i n f o r m a t i o n form t h a t requested demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and asked t o f i l l out the metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . Second, s i n c e one of the main goals of t h i s study was to examine the reliability of the questionnaire, i t was felt that a reasonably l a r g e sample would provide more s t a b l e r e s u l t s than a s m a l l e r sample.  106  included  homemakers,  personnel,  and  tradespeople,  professionals.  office  workers,  Socioeconomic  status  e s t i m a t e d u s i n g the Hodge-Siegel-Rossi Occupational Equivalents  (Davis  the v o l u n t e e r s rated  their  r(373) -.21,  was  .001;  correlations  As were  average  or better  related  and  to  .05.  account  percent  and  85%  educational  7  be  correlated  Nevertheless,  f o r more  expected, with  p_  < .001 and hearing,  of  eyesight  status,  s e l f - r e p o r t ratings  than  they w i l l not considered might  to  p < .02; t o socioeconomic  .09, p. <  variance,  as  significantly  = -. 11,  =  Ninety-four  Prestige of  rated  as average or b e t t e r .  p_ <  r(374)  1985).  was  r a t e d t h e i r h e a l t h as average or b e t t e r , 90%  eyesight  t h e i r hearing Age  & Smith,  sales  since  five  of  health,  none  o f the  percent  were  of the  further.  eyesight,  also  related,  of  r(374)  r(374) = .64, p_ < .001.  and hearing  r(370) =  of  self-report ratings  ratings  level,  health =  .59,  Self-ratings r(374)  =  .60,  return  the  P < .001. An  additional  56  individuals  failed  to  materials. M a t e r i a l s and Procedure. Each p a r t i c i p a n t was given complete.  Each  packet  a small  contained  packet of papers t o a  consent  form,  a  In t h i s , and the f o l l o w i n g s t u d i e s , data were not a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s on a l l measures. The v a r i o u s a n a l y t i c procedures were conducted u s i n g the maximum amount of data a v a i l a b l e . 7  107  participant  information  form, a  s e t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , and  an eight-page q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The  p a r t i c i p a n t information  form requested  demographic  data such as age, gender, number o f years o f education, occupation  (or  previous  occupation,  if  P a r t i c i p a n t s were a l s o asked t o r a t e t h e i r eyesight,  and h e a r i n g  r a t i n g s were done using  five point  retired).  general  ( c f . Dixon & H u l t s c h ,  and  health,  1983b).  These  s c a l e s t h a t ranged  from  very good t o very poor. The  instructions  questionnaire  items  described  and  stressed  the three  format points:  of  the  (a) t h a t  there were no r i g h t or wrong answers t o any o f the items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; every  item,  even  (b) t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s were t o respond t o i f i t d i d not seem t o apply  (c) t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s were t o respond with  t o them; and  the choice  that  best a p p l i e d t o them. The  eight-page  questionnaire  contained  items  to how people p e r c e i v e t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s , if  anything,  contained  a  prospective adapted •  in  they  do  number  of  memory.  from  Adulthood  to  improve  items  their  specifically  Many of the g e n e r a l  Dixon and Hultsch's •  •  Questionnaire.  8  memory.  (1983a, Others  relating and what, I t also  concerned  with  memory items were 1983b) Metamemory were  adapted  from  Q  Questions from four of the e i g h t s u b s c a l e s on the Metamemory i n Adulthood Questionnaire were adapted f o r use i n t h i s study. The four subscales were C a p a c i t y , Change, S t r a t e g y , and Achievement. Items on these s u b s c a l e s appeared t o have g r e a t e r relevance f o r performance on  108  Perlmutter's items  (1978) Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  A number o f t h e  on p r o s p e c t i v e memory were adapted  from Herrmann and  Neisser's  (1978) Inventory  Several additional  items were generated  questionnaire o r i g i n a l l y be  only  one  of  of Everyday Memory  contained  several  by t h e author.  122 items.  measures  used  s t u d i e s , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was shortened procedures statement  d e s c r i b e d i n Appendix C. form, was followed  The  item  Questionnaire) perceptions  tasks;  by f i v e  metamemory  was used  of  one's  t o assess own  of one's a b i l i t y  awareness of changes  strategies  t o 50 items,  choices  using  ranging  from  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e took  five  memory  (the Memory  aspects  abilities  t o perform  in  reliability  of  general;  time;  feelings  a good memory; and use  t o improve memory performance.  and  o f memory:  p r o s p e c t i v e memory  i n memory over  whether t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e f l e c t e d structure  i n the f o l l o w i n g  questionnaire  about, o r a t t i t u d e s towards, having of  As i t was t o  20 minutes t o complete.  50  perceptions  The  Each item, presented i n  agree s t r o n g l y t o d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y . approximately  Experiences.  these  the  five  To determine aspects, the  questionnaire  were  assessed. Based on the assumption t h a t the hypothesized of  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  would  be  supported  by  structure  the  results  p r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks than items on the other s u b s c a l e s (Task, A c t i v i t y , Anxiety, and Locus). The author i s g r a t e f u l t o Dr. David H u l t s c h f o r s u p p l y i n g m a t e r i a l s on the Metamemory i n Adulthood Questionnaire.  109  ( p r i m a r i l y because the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was very s i m i l a r t o t h e Metamemory i n Adulthood  Questionnaire),  concerning  performance  line  age-related  with  objective  measures  several predictions  were of  made.  prospective  performance, age d i f f e r e n c e s were not expected assessing perceptions of Moscovitch 1986a;  & Minde,  West,  in  memory  for the s c a l e  p r o s p e c t i v e memory a b i l i t i e s (e.g.  cited  1984).  First,  by  Moscovitch,  Second,  1982; S i n n o t t ,  consistent  with  results  r e p o r t e d by Dixon and Hultsch  (1983b), age d i f f e r e n c e s were  not  assessing  expected  f o r the s c a l e s  the use of memory  s t r a t e g i e s or a t t i t u d e s about having a good memory, age  differences  were  expected  f o r the scales  although assessing  p e r c e p t i o n s both of one's own memory a b i l i t i e s and of change in  memory  abilities  over  time.  Third,  i t was p r e d i c t e d  t h a t , on these l a t t e r s c a l e s , young p a r t i c i p a n t s would score h i g h e r than that  old participants.  overall,  either  young  middle  Fourth,  i t was a l s o  p a r t i c i p a n t s would  age  or  old  score  participants,  expected  higher  than  although  no  p r e d i c t i o n 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 S t r u c t u r e and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Memory Questionnaire The factor  questionnaire  analyses.  data  A five  were  factor  preliminary  analysis  based  theoretical  considerations.  on  subjected  to a s e r i e s of  s o l u t i o n was chosen from a both Common  a  scree  factors  test were  and then  110  obtained  by  transformed rotation.  the  unweighted  t o simple  least  squares  method  s t r u c t u r e by a H a r r i s - K a i s e r  and  oblique  Using a s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n o f .30 or g r e a t e r , 41  of t h e o r i g i n a l  50 items loaded  on t h e f i v e  factors.  items were dropped from subsequent a n a l y s e s : they loaded  three  Five  because  e q u a l l y on two f a c t o r s ; one because i t loaded on  two  f a c t o r s , n e i t h e r o f which were t h e expected f a c t o r ; and  one  because i t loaded  seem  t o f i t with  additional  items  Nevertheless,  on an unexpected f a c t o r and i t d i d not  the other d i d not  items load  on t h a t  on  any  factor.  of  i t was necessary t o i n c l u d e  Four  the f a c t o r s .  them i n order t o  obtain a clean solution. The of  five  their  f a c t o r s were i n t e r p r e t e d and l a b e l e d  item  content  ( c f . Dixon  & Hultsch,  i n terms  1983b).  They  are: Factor seven  items  activities  1.  Prospective  memory.  r e l a t e d t o the a b i l i t y sometime  i n the f u t u r e .  This  factor  contained  t o remember t o perform Examples  included:  I  o f t e n f o r g e t t o pass on messages; I r a r e l y f o r g e t t o keep an appointment; I o f t e n f o r g e t t o make important phone c a l l s . Factor contained  2.  Achievement  and  motivation.  remembering  important  2  nine items r e l a t e d t o the importance people a t t a c h  t o having a good memory and t o how much e f f o r t in  Factor  t o me  information. t o have  Examples  they expend  included:  a good memory; A good  It i s memory i s  Ill  something  of which  t o be proud;  I admire  people  who  have  good memories. Factor  3.  Change  over  time.  This  factor  contained  seven items concerned with people's p e r c e p t i o n s o f how t h e i r memories  had,  or  Examples i n c l u d e d : as  I get older;  were  expected  t o , change  over  time.  I t h i n k I w i l l f o r g e t t h i n g s more e a s i l y  My memory w i l l  get b e t t e r as I g e t o l d e r ;  My memory has g r e a t l y improved i n the l a s t 10 y e a r s . F a c t o r 4. contained their  12  E v a l u a t i o n o f one's own memory. items  concerned  own memory a b i l i t i e s  situations.  Examples  have d i f f i c u l t y  with  (both  people's  This factor awareness of  good and bad) i n v a r i o u s  included:  I often  remembering t r i v i a ;  forget  facts;  I  I am good a t remembering  names. Factor items  5.  concerned  strategies.  Use of s t r a t e g i e s . with  t h e use o f v a r i o u s  Examples i n c l u d e d :  or p i c t u r e s i n t r y i n g  Factor  5 contained s i x types  o f memory  I o f t e n use mental  images  t o remember something; I c o n s c i o u s l y  attempt t o r e c o n s t r u c t the day's events i n order t o remember something; I o f t e n t r y t o remember something by remembering some i n f o r m a t i o n about i t . Based on the f a c t o r i a l r e s u l t s , by  summing the scores  were The  given  the same  over  f i v e s c a l e s were c o n s t r u c t e d  the d e f i n i n g items.  l a b e l s as the corresponding  r e l i a b i l i t y o f the s c a l e s was assessed  internal  consistency  The s c a l e s  of  each  scale  was  factors.  i n two ways. assessed  The using  112  Cronbach's alpha c o e f f i c i e n t  (Cronbach,  reliability  using  was  participants  assessed  (from  Study  q u e s t i o n n a i r e a second the  first  4)  time,  are presented  a  who  were  Results  i n Table  Test-retest  subsample  62 the  f i v e weeks a f t e r  of  2.  of  administered  approximately  administration.  assessment  1951).  the  reliability  Examination  of the  t a b l e i n d i c a t e s that the s c a l e s have a c c e p t a b l e  reliability  l e v e l s , with the alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from  .70 t o .85  and  the t e s t - r e t e s t  correlations  ranging  from  .73 t o .85.  These r e s u l t s are comparable t o those r e p o r t e d by Dixon and Hultsch  (unpublished manuscript,  Intercorrelations presented one's  3.  <  five  As one might  r(374)  own  =  memory  .41, p_ <  given t h a t  scale  expect, related Further,  memory  scores  Again,  individuals  these  are  E v a l u a t i o n of to Prospective E v a l u a t i o n of  were  related  = .40, p_ < .001, and r(374)  .001, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  unexpected,  .001.  and P r o s p e c t i v e  Change over time, r(374) p_  the  own memory was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  memory, one's  i n Table  among  no d a t e ) .  results  to  = . 19,  were not  who a r e aware of t h e i r  a b i l i t y t o remember p a r t i c u l a r types of i n f o r m a t i o n are a l s o likely  t o be  remember  aware  this  of any  information  changes  as  they  in their grow  ability  older.  Use o f  s t r a t e g i e s was r e l a t e d t o Achievement and m o t i v a t i o n , =  r(374)  .47, p_ < .001, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t those i n d i v i d u a l s who  that  having  a  good  memory  is  important  and  to  who  feel are  113  Table 2 R e l i a b i l i t y o f the f i v e s c a l e s on the Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  Scale  Number  Coefficient  Test-retest  name  of items  alpha  reliability  (N=376)  (N=62)  7  .70  .73  9  . 79  .76  7  .85  .85  12  .70  . 84  6  .70  .75  Prospective  a  memory Achievement and m o t i v a t i o n Change over time Evaluation of one's own memory Use o f strategies Note.  a  T  n  e  individuals  s  e  c o e f f i c i e n t s are based on a subsample o f 62  from Study 4.  approximately f i v e weeks.  The  t e s t - r e t e s t i n t e r v a l was  114 Table 3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the f i v e s c a l e s on the Memory Questionnaire  Scale Scale  1  2  3  4  1- P r o s p e c t i v e memory 2- Achievement and  -.04  motivation  3- Change over  .19*  -.05  time 4- E v a l u a t i o n of  .41*  -.01  .40*  one's own memory 5- Use o f strategies Note:  * p_ < . 001.  -.03  .47*  .01  .02  5  115  willing  t o work a t remembering  information  are a l s o  those  who are l i k e l y t o use a v a r i e t y o f memory s t r a t e g i e s . Performance as a f u n c t i o n To  determine  whether  questionnaire scales product-moment  o f age responses  d i f f e r e d as a f u n c t i o n  correlations  were  s c o r e s on each of t h e s c a l e s . with  Evaluation  of one's  .003,  suggesting  about  their  individuals.  that  ability  older more score  between  r(374)  individuals  age and  correlated  = -.14, p_ <  feel  less  i n general  negatively  various  o f age, Pearson  Age was n e g a t i v e l y  t o remember also  the  positive  than  younger  correlated  t o with  r(374) = -.25, p < .001, suggesting  participants with  computed  own memory,  older  Age was  Change over time,  to  age than  think  their  younger  memory  has or w i l l  participants.  (based on the sum o f the scores  that  change  Age and t o t a l  f o r the f i v e  scales)  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d as w e l l , r(374) = -.14, p < .003. Similar  findings  have  been  reported  by Dixon  and H u l t s c h  (1983b). To the  f u r t h e r examine the i n f l u e n c e  sample  was  divided  into  five  of age on performance, age  groups  based  on  s u g g e s t i o n s i n the l i f e - s p a n l i t e r a t u r e (e.g.  Bromley, 1974;  Lidz,  1986).  1980; Rogers,  groups were: young  1982; Schaie  & Willis,  These  (18 t o 30 years of age, n = 81), young-  middle age (31 t o 40 years of age, n = 71) , middle age (41 t o 55 y e a r s o f age, n = 73), old-middle age (56 t o 65 years of age, n = 65) and o l d (66 years of age and o l d e r ,  n = 86).  116  Means  and  questionnaire A  one-way  conducted scores  u s i n g age  on  the  <  five  The  significant,  for  scores  analysis  of  variance  as the independent  of the  Lambda  =  as  likelihood .87,  F  univariate  significant  on  the  a r e presented i n Table  questionnaire scales  Follow-up  revealed  group  group  results  Wilks  .001.  (ANOVAs)  deviations  f o r each age  multivariate  measures.  P  standard  age  (MANOVA)  was  variable,  and  the  dependent  ratio  (20,  test  were  =  2.63,  1218)  analyses effects  4.  of  variance  f o r two  of  the  s c a l e s , E v a l u a t i o n of one's own memory and Change over time. For  the  scale  assessing  p e r c e p t i o n s of  abilities  i n g e n e r a l , F(4, 371)  assessing  awareness of change, F(4, 371)  Follow-up  pairwise  comparisons  = 3.81,  were  one's  p < .005; = 8.50,  calculated  s c a l e s u s i n g the S p j o t v o l l - S t o l i n e p r o c e d u r e . age  respondents  (31 t o  40 year  Evaluation  comparisons assessing years  of  of  one's  own  age  p_ < for  .001. both  o l d s ) scored  significantly  (56 t o 65 year olds)  memory.  respondents  scored higher than  for that  Young-middle  None  f o r t h i s s c a l e were s i g n i f i c a n t .  change over time,  memory  9  h i g h e r than old-middle age respondents on  own  those  of  the  other  For the s c a l e  between over 40.  18  and  40  That i s ,  The Spjotvoll-Stoline procedure for pairwise comparisons is a modification of Tukey's Honestly Significant D i f f e r e n c e t e s t f o r unequal n's. As with Tukey's t e s t , the procedure assumes equal v a r i a n c e s . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the procedure can be found i n K i r k (1982, pp. 118-119).  117  Table 4 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s ( i n parentheses)  f o r scores on  the Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r each age group  Age Group  Scale  Y-ma  Y Prospective memory Achievement and m o t i v a t i o n Change over  E v a l u a t i o n of one's own  0-ma  0  a  26 .35  27 .55  26 .90  27 .33  26 .47  (5. 10)  (4. 76)  (4. 79)  (4. 68)  (4. 36)  36 .79  35 .75  36 .92  36 .92  (4. 68)  (5. 52)  (6. 16)  (4. 70)  19 .49  36 . 58 (5. 43) 16 .41  19 . 11  16 . 49  15 .91  ( - 73)  (4- 97)  (4. 74)  (4. 46)  38 .01  35 .45  33 .92  35 .43  (7. 82)  (6. 66)  (7. 04)  (6. 24)  20 .79  21 .07  (3. 80)  (4. 70)  (5. 01)  (4. 31)  141 . 68 141 .21  136 .41  135 .86  136 .41  (16. 24)  (12. 190  (17. 50)  (13 . 02)  (5. 44)  time  Ma  37 . 00 (6. 18)  5  memory 22 . 05  Use o f strategies Total  (4. 31)  (15. 65)  Note:  a  Y = young (18 t o  21 . 19  21 .69  30 years of age) ; Y-ma = young  —  middle age (31 t o 40 years of age); Ma = middle age (41 t o 55 years o f age); O-ma = old-middle age (56 t o 65 years of age); 0 = o l d (66 years of age and o l d e r ) . scores f o r each o f the s c a l e s are:  *"* T o t a l p o s s i b l e  P r o s p e c t i v e memory = 35;  118 Achievement and m o t i v a t i o n = 45; E v a l u a t i o n of one's own and T o t a l = 205.  Change over time = 35;  memory = 60; Use of s t r a t e g i e s = 30;  119  both  the  young  and  the  young-middle  age  groups  scored  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the middle age, the old-middle and the o l d groups. not  differ.  Scores  These  f o r the two  results  support  youngest those  age  groups d i d  based  on  the  c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. A  one-way  questionnaire although  ANOVA  was  none  A  comparing  two  groups  the  ( i . e . 18  total  significant,  of  significant.  on  the  score F(4,  follow-up  complex  371)  t o 40 years  f i v e age  groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t .  that, both  overall,  young  the middle  age  comparisons  were  the  test)  three  was  oldest  significant,  complex c o n t r a s t s i n v o l v i n g a l l  participants and  .03,  o l d s v s . 40+)  several additional  2.78,  Scheffe's  with  although  metamemory p_ <  (using  groups  the  =  pairwise  contrast  youngest  for  Thus, the  would  score  hypothesis  higher  the o l d p a r t i c i p a n t s was  than  minimally  supported. Discussion As  noted,  f i r s t was  Study 3 was  t o determine  f o r two  the s t r u c t u r e and  Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; responses  conducted  the  second  was  to  reasons.  The  reliability  of the  determine  whether  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of  age.  Because the Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  Dixon  and  Hultsch's  Questionnaire, reliability  of  it the  data confirmed t h i s .  (1983a, was  very  1983b) Metamemory  expected  measure would  that be  the  in  to  Adulthood  structure  reasonably  Although the r e l i a b i l i t y  similar  good.  and The  of the Memory  120  Questionnaire  was  not as high  Metamemory  i n Adulthood  unpublished  manuscript,  reported  Questionnaire no d a t e ) ,  f o r s e v e r a l other  Herrmann,  as t h a t  1982, 1984).  reported (Dixon  f o r the  &  Hultsch,  i t was h i g h e r  than  that  metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (see  As  expected,  young  participants  scored h i g h e r than o l d p a r t i c i p a n t s on t h e s c a l e s a s s e s s i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f one's own memory a b i l i t i e s change  over  Hultsch's  time.  (1983b)  participants  would  These  results  findings. have  also  indicate  that  support  The p r e d i c t i o n  a higher  total  p a r t i c i p a n t s was m i n i m a l l y supported. findings  and awareness o f  the Memory  Dixon  that  score  and  younger  than  older  Taken t o g e t h e r , these Questionnaire  i s both  r e l i a b l e and s e n s i t i v e t o age d i f f e r e n c e s . The  results,  however,  should  be  interpreted  with  c a u t i o n , s i n c e t h e r e appear t o be a number o f problems with the  format  items  of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  For example, many of the  i n c l u d e d t h e words " o f t e n " or " r a r e l y " .  interpretation  difficulties  although  difficulties  related.  these  Participants  also  for  several  d i d not commented  This created participants,  appear on  to  the  be  age  difficulty  a s s o c i a t e d with responding t o items c o n t a i n i n g more than one idea  (e.g Having  a good memory would be n i c e , but i t i s not  important), s i n c e they may have agreed with o n l y p a r t o f the statement. agreement  The use of a response created  participants  agreed  problems with  as  the g i s t  s c a l e based well,  on extent of  particularly  of a statement,  when  but not  121  with  the  item as  i t was  worded.  A number of  participants  q u a l i f i e d t h e i r responses,  f o r example, by n o t i n g t h a t they  never  forgot  because  down,  or  appointments  that  they  felt  they  always  short-term,  memory, would d e c l i n e with age.  but  the  Questionnaire had  been  all have  part,  were not  collected  therefore, despite  most  i t s problems,  participants. contained  encountered  to  long-term  items.  difficulties  continue  with  the  Memory  until  much of  5).  The  investigator,  using  the  questionnaire  ( i . e . i n Study  decided  not  them  The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s d i d not  appear t o be s p e c i f i c t o any p a r t i c u l a r For  wrote  the  data  i n order t o have comparable data  In r e t r o s p e c t , the  more p r e c i s e items  for  q u e s t i o n n a i r e should  and  participants  should  have been asked t o i n d i c a t e e i t h e r the extent t o which they agreed with p a r t i c u l a r statements,  or the a b s o l u t e  frequency  w i t h which they experienced v a r i o u s types of memory f a i l u r e s (cf.  Dixon  &  Hultsch,  date; H a r r i s , 1978, As  noted  advantages developed provide  of in  investigators research  area.  the  using  valuable  unpublished  manuscript,  no  1980).  in  the  1983b,  Introduction,  self-report  first  three  insights  should  be  Given  measures,  studies,  into  the  addressing, the  one  problems  is  types  of  the  major  such  as  those  that  they  of  particularly  s t u d i e s are only a  point.  address  In order t o adequately  questions in a  a s s o c i a t e d with  r e p o r t measures, though, these  can  new  self-  starting  a research question  122  such as whether p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory d i f f e r , or whether p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance d i f f e r s adult  life  span, one needs  t o compare  responses  across the on  self-  r e p o r t measures with performance on more o b j e c t i v e measures (e.g. al.,  Dixon & Hultsch,  1983a;  Hulicka,  1982; Z e l i n s k i e t  1980). T h i s was done i n S t u d i e s 4 and 5.  123 STUDY 4 The living a  f o u r t h study was conducted t o determine how people  i n t h e community f e e l about, and use,  daily  basis.  behavioral  This  measures.  was  assessed  Both  using  retrospective  t h e i r memory on s e l f - r e p o r t and and  prospective  memory were examined. Method Participants The  p a r t i c i p a n t s were 62 community d w e l l i n g  a d u l t s (15  males and 47 females) between 20 and 88 years o f age (mean age  50.18 y e a r s ) .  They  were  recruited  groups, r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s ,  3,  socioeconomic  Siegel-Rossi Smith, their  1985). N i n e t y - f o u r  eyesight  was  Occupational  general  Educational  level  with a mean o f 14.5 years. status  health  seniors'  advertisements i n community  newspapers, and r a d i o i n t e r v i e w s . from 8 t o 22 years,  through  estimated  Prestige percent  ranged  As i n Study  using  the Hodge-  Equivalents  (Davis  &  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d  as average o r b e t t e r ,  90% r a t e d  their  as average or b e t t e r and 82% r a t e d t h e i r h e a r i n g as  average o r b e t t e r . Age  was  health,  =  eyesight, An study.  related  to  self-ratings  r(60) = .27, p < .02, and eyesight,  p < .01. r(60)  significantly  Ratings o f h e a l t h .21, p r(60)  <  and hearing  .05, as were  of  r(60) = .29,  were a l s o r e l a t e d ,  ratings  o f hearing  and  = .33, p < .01.  additional  19 p a r t i c i p a n t s  failed  t o complete t h e  I n d i v i d u a l s who d i d not complete the study d i d not  124  differ  from  those  who d i d with  respect  years of education, and socioeconomic  t o age, number of  level.  Materials Both  self-report  and b e h a v i o r a l  measures were used i n  t h i s study. Self-report  measures.  The  self-report  measures  i n c l u d e d a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of the memory d i a r y developed i n Study  1,  a  slightly  questionnaire  modified  developed  in  version  Study  2,  of  the  memory  and  the  Memory  a  s e t of  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e developed i n Study 3. The  modified  memory  diary  i n s t r u c t i o n s and 25 i d e n t i c a l  consisted  of  i n f o r m a t i o n / d i a r y sheets.  It  was e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e d i a r y was meant t o serve as a r e c o r d of the unique o r unusual events that the p a r t i c i p a n t had t o do each day ( c f . E l l i s ,  1988).  P a r t i c i p a n t s were t o l d  that,  f o r the purposes o f the study, a unique or unusual event was (a) something  they d i d not do everyday,  they had planned had  important  fill  t o do i n advance,  consequences  (b) something  that  and (c) something  that  f o r them.  out one i n f o r m a t i o n sheet  f o r each  They were  asked t o  activity  they had  intended t o do d u r i n g the day, r e g a r d l e s s o f whether o r not they  remembered  t o do i t .  I f they d i d not have anything  unusual t o do on a p a r t i c u l a r day, they were asked  t o note  this.  In a d d i t i o n t o s p e c i f y i n g the nature o f t h e intended  event,  participants  they performed  were  asked  to indicate  (a) how  often  t h e p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y d u r i n g t h e course of  125  a week, (b) how important i t was f o r them t o perform how p l e a s a n t they  found  items  rating  involved a  whether they and,  the a c t i v i t y on  had remembered  seven-point  scales),  the a c t i v i t y  i n time  asked  to  classify  remember t h e i r asked  to  activity during  indicate  relative  (a)  any type  any  additional of  remembered.  and (d) t o do i t  participants  one  of  five  I f p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d not  t o do i t , they  they  remembered  was remembered,  were  also  about  the  a i d t o remember t h e a c t i v i t y (d) why  they  Participants  comments  whether  I t was  (c) whether they  felt  they  had  and (e) why they f e l t they had l a t e r  the a c t i v i t y .  regardless  reflect,  when  i t was,  f o r g o t t e n the a c t i v i t y ,  add  i n time  o f memory  i f so, what  remembered  1.  into  latter  t o when they should have done i t , (b) when  t h e day the event  used  and,  intention  As w e l l ,  the a c t i v i t y  c a t e g o r i e s as o u t l i n e d i n Study  had  (both o f these  i f so, whether they had done i t .  were  i t , (c)  or  assumed  they  not  felt  the  that  were  encouraged  were  necessary,  intention  the d i a r y  to  had  been  e n t r i e s would  and be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f , the t y p e s . o f p r o s p e c t i v e  memory t a s k s p a r t i c i p a n t s engaged i n on a day-to-day  basis.  Diary i n s t r u c t i o n s and an i n f o r m a t i o n sheet are presented i n Appendix D. Like developed study  the  memory  diary,  the  memory  questionnaire  i n Study 2 was a l s o modified f o r use i n t h e f o u r t h  (primarily  specifically  t o e l i m i n a t e items  for a  student  t h a t had been i n c l u d e d  population).  The  revised  126  version, called presented the  the Memory F a i l u r e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (MFQ), i s  i n Appendix E. The  first  four  of  which  MFQ  were  scheme  used  items,  S e c t i o n 2 c o n t a i n e d 17  each  i n Studies  contained  4  1  sections.  For each  on  2.  and how  was  t o add  the  of  ranged  Importance  was  S e c t i o n s 3 and  4  case  in  Study  items t o each  2,  of these  were asked  to  f o r g o t t e n t o perform the s p e c i f i e d i f so, how  from  rated  was  assessed  using  o f t e n they  a  f o r them,  rated  using a  u s i n g a seven  four p o i n t  forgotten  remember  scale  scale  anything e l s e  whether  that  In the  were asked  previous sections. indicate  point  t o very unpleasant.  participants  to  that  had  indicate not  something  had  they  used had  any  forgotten  ranged  Pleasantness from  section  included  very  of the  whether they  been  type  point  10 times.  that  ranged  fifth  In the l a s t s e c t i o n , they  five  1 t o 2 times t o more than  not a t a l l important t o very important.  pleasant MFQ,  6  important that a c t i v i t y was  forgetting  scale that  was  contained  p l e a s a n t they g e n e r a l l y found t h i s type of a c t i v i t y .  Frequency  from  classification  Section 1  a c t i v i t y d u r i n g the p r e v i o u s week and, f o r g o t t e n i t , how  the  item, p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n d i c a t e whether they had  had  of s i x s e c t i o n s ,  items, and  As  p a r t i c i p a n t s were encouraged four  based  and  items.  consists  had  i n the  they were asked t o of memory a i d t o and,  if  so,  to  i n d i c a t e the mnemonic employed. The  third  Questionnaire  self-report  (MQ)  measure was  developed i n Study  3.  the 50-item  Memory  127  Behavioral  measures.  The b e h a v i o r a l  measures  involved  r e t u r n i n g m a t e r i a l s , making phone c a l l s and completing  tasks  i n a s p e c i f i e d manner. P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o r e t u r n a t o t a l of seven s e t s of  materials.  particular specific calls,  Four  days;  dates. four  of  these  t h e other  were  three  to  particular point  specified  days,  returned  on  were t o be returned  They were a l s o asked  on  be  t o make  and  the  five  phone  fifth,  i n the study. Thus, e i g h t t a s k s  by  at  a  (returning  four sets o f m a t e r i a l s and making four phone c a l l s ) were t o be  completed  tasks  within  (returning  a relatively  three  sets  short  time  of m a t e r i a l s  frame.  Four  and making  one  phone c a l l ) were t o be completed w i t h i n a longer time frame. In calls,  addition  t o returning  participants  were  materials  asked  to  and making provide  phone  specific  i n f o r m a t i o n both i n the d i a r i e s and i n t h e i r phone messages. In the d i a r y , they were t o note the date and the day o f the week they date  started  and time  calls,  it.  As w e l l ,  f o r .each entry.  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked the time  they  were t o i n c l u d e the  For the f i r s t t o leave  of the c a l l ,  four  a message,  and the s t a t u s  phone giving  their  name,  o f the  diary  (whether i t had been, or would be, sent; see below).  Procedure This  was a mail-based along  with  study.  P a r t i c i p a n t s were  self-addressed  stamped  sent  the  materials,  envelopes  and  c o v e r i n g l e t t e r s i n d i c a t i n g when the m a t e r i a l s should be  128  returned.  The l e t t e r s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t i f a p a r t i c i p a n t  chose t o withdraw  from  the study,  a l l materials  should  be  returned. Individuals  interested i n participating  were sent two copies o f t h e consent background  information  information  such  occupation  as  form  (or previous occupation,  requested  along  with  The second  p e r s o n a l records.  copy  form,  of the consent  by a  form  and  They were  form and r e t u r n  information  it,  specified  was f o r t h e i r  I f the m a t e r i a l s were not r e c e i v e d w i t h i n  one  week o f the s p e c i f i e d date,  by  phone  to  level,  i f retired).  t o s i g n one copy o f the consent  date.  demographic  educational  asked  the completed  study  form, and one copy o f a  that  age, gender,  in this  see  if  they  p a r t i c i p a n t s were were  still  contacted  interested  in  participating  and, i f so, they were reminded t o r e t u r n the  materials.  (This procedure was used whenever an item was  not r e c e i v e d by the expected  time).  Once the i n v e s t i g a t o r had r e c e i v e d the signed  consent  and the background i n f o r m a t i o n forms, p a r t i c i p a n t s were sent the  Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  r e t u r n i t by a s p e c i f i e d Once  the  MQ1  (MQ1)  and asked  t o complete and  date.  was  received  by  the i n v e s t i g a t o r ,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were sent f o u r c o p i e s o f the memory d i a r y along with begin  i n s t r u c t i o n s t o keep each d i a r y f o r one week only, t o and r e t u r n i t on s p e c i f i e d  regarding  the d i a r y  on  a  dates,  particular  and t o make a c a l l day.  Half  o f the  129  participants  were asked  t o phone the day b e f o r e  the d i a r y  was sent, h a l f were asked  t o phone the day a f t e r .  For each  call,  asked  participants  were  to  leave  i n c l u d e d t h e i r name, the time o f the c a l l ,  a  message  that  and an i n d i c a t i o n  of when the d i a r y was, o r would be, sent. After  returning  the fourth  sent  the Memory F a i l u r e s  copy  o f the Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  p r o s p e c t i v e memory assessed  whether  diary,  Questionnaire  failures  participants  (MFQ) and a second  (MQ2).  The MFQ  f o r the p r e v i o u s  participants'  They were asked  specified  date,  were  mailed  follow-up  examined  week. The MQ2  attitudes  about  memories had changed as a consequence o f having diaries.  were  their  kept  their  t o r e t u r n both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s by a  and t o phone on the day the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  t o arrange  interview.  a mutually  convenient  Participants  failing  time to  for a  phone  to  arrange a time f o r the i n t e r v i e w were contacted a week a f t e r they had returned the l a s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The the  phone  minutes  or  to  questions the  s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w was conducted i n person  complete.  and It  regarding the study,  participant's  Participants  were  took  asked  approximately  involved  answering  over  fifteen specific  the use o f memory a i d s , and  motivational also  either  level  t o provide  (co-operation). self-ratings  of  t h e i r memory, h e a l t h , h e a r i n g and e y e s i g h t (see Appendix F ) . They  were  participation.  then  debriefed  and  thanked  for  their  130 Summary and p r e d i c t i o n s In  summary, p a r t i c i p a n t s were  diaries,  and t h e MFQ and MQ2; t o make f i v e phone c a l l s , one a  diary  was  mailed  forms,  i n the  and  time  information  t o mail  consent  each  participant  asked:  and  one  MQ1,  to  four  arrange  an  appointment f o r the i n t e r v i e w ; t o leave a phone message t h a t included  t h e i r name, t h e time o f t h e c a l l ,  and i n f o r m a t i o n  r e g a r d i n g when the d i a r y had o r would be sent; t o w r i t e t h e day  of t h e week and the date on the f r o n t of each d i a r y ; and  t o w r i t e t h e date and the time o f each entry i n the d i a r y . P r o s p e c t i v e memory was assessed or  not p a r t i c i p a n t s returned  the materials  phone c a l l s a t the s p e c i f i e d times, they  i n c l u d e d the requested  phone  messages.  retrospective  The  were completed  after  Retrospective  entries  of p r o s p e c t i v e  the v a r i o u s  memory  was  whether  and made the  and by examining whether  information  diary  measures  by determining  i n the d i a r i e s and and  memory,  activities  assessed  the MFQ since  had  were they  occurred.  using  the  follow-up  First,  the d i a r y was  interview. Several intended  p r e d i c t i o n s were made.  t o assess  memory  f o r unique  There was no t h e o r e t i c a l  reason  this  would vary  and a  type  o f information  anecdotal  events.  t o b e l i e v e t h a t memory f o r as a f u n c t i o n o f age,  r e p o r t s suggested t h a t people o f a l l ages use  number o f s t r a t e g i e s t o ensure  not  or unusual  forgotten.  Consequently,  that  i t was  such  information i s  expected  that  older  131  p a r t i c i p a n t s would r e p o r t remembering approximately the same proportion  o f d i a r y e n t r i e s as younger p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Second,  a number of s t u d i e s  participants  have suggested t h a t  a r e more s e n s i t i v e t o (or may  older  at least  report  more) memory f a i l u r e s f o r everyday types o f a c t i v i t i e s younger al.,  individuals  1980).  It  participants  would  number  of  (e.g. Perlmutter, was,  therefore,  score  memory  higher  failures)  1978;  Zelinski,  predicted  that  the  MFQ  et  older  ( i n d i c a t i v e of a  on  than  greater  than  younger  individuals. Third,  because  people's  perceptions  of  their  own  memories may not always r e f l e c t t h e i r a b i l i t y t o remember t o perform number  various  o f memory  Questionnaire and  activities, failures  (MQ)  was  and may they  the  experienced, experienced,  number  as  of  opposed  memory  change.  would  show  I t was  greater  both  failures  the Memory  that  they  they  that  of t h e i r  after  actually  thought  o f t h e i r memory  hypothesized  by the  a t the beginning  expected  t o the number  awareness  influenced  remember,  I t was  people's p e r c e p t i o n s  might  can  administered  a t t h e end o f the study.  observing  be  they  abilities  a l l individuals  memory, a b i l i t y  (as  measured by t h e MQ) a f t e r the study than before i t . Fourth, participants  as  indicated  generally  in  the  perform as w e l l  younger p a r t i c i p a n t s on p r o s p e c t i v e therefore,  expected  that  Introduction, as, or b e t t e r  memory t a s k s .  regardless  older than,  I t was,  o f age, p a r t i c i p a n t s  132  would  remember  t o mail  the materials  and make  t h e phone  calls. Fifth, for,  West  (1984)  t h e hypothesis  looked,  that  but found  while  minimal  general  support  performance  on  p r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks may not d i f f e r as a f u n c t i o n o f age older  participants  may  be  less  likely  than  younger  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o remember t h e s p e c i f i c s o f the t a s k s . hypothesis Namely,  was  i t was  addressed  again  in  predicted  that  older  remember t o perform the v a r i o u s  the  study.  participants  tasks,  i n c l u d e the a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n  present  This  but would  as requested  would  forget to  (e.g.  dates,  times). S i x t h , i t was hypothesized t h a t i f both the s e l f - r e p o r t and  the  behavioral  measures  were  memory performance, they should  assessing  be c o r r e l a t e d .  Seventh, because much o f the l i t e r a t u r e aging  indicates  tasks  declines  performance  that with  memory age,  on the follow-up  prospective  performance it  was  on  on memory and retrospective  hypothesized  interview  would  differ  that as a  f u n c t i o n o f age, with younger p a r t i c i p a n t s performing b e t t e r than o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s . Finally,  based  on f i n d i n g s  (1987) and Meacham and Leiman performance on the. follow-up with  performance  reported  (1982), interview  on the d i a r i e s ,  b e h a v i o r a l measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e  by  Kvavilashvili  i t was expected  that  would not c o r r e l a t e  the MFQ, memory.  or t h e  three  Scoring S e l f - r e p o r t measures  MFQ,  The  s e l f - r e p o r t measures i n c l u d e d the memory d i a r y , the  and  the MQ  (both MQ1 and M Q 2 ) .  Memory d i a r y .  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  d i a r y e n t r y f o r each unusual do d u r i n g the day, activity  or unique event they planned  it.  detailed  Consequently,  complete  the  They were a l s o asked t o  information  memory  diaries  about  number  participants  Therefore,  of  diary  across  participants  both the  to  contained  the  within  number  of  entries four and  a  varied  entry.  wealth  diary  within  and  the  entries  between  four was  of  here.  both  diaries, across  provide  each  i n f o r m a t i o n , only some of which w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d The  a  r e g a r d l e s s of whether they remembered the  i n time t o do  reasonably  to  weeks.  examined.  Because p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to note remembered  as  as  entries  forgotten  remembered  was  intentions, also  a b s o l u t e number was  the  assessed.  proportion (Proportion  of as  well  opposed  to  used, s i n c e the t o t a l number of e n t r i e s  could vary). Memory F a i l u r e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . terms of the t o t a l whether  these  were  number of items specific  t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t had Memory administered  MFQ  was  scored  in  f o r g o t t e n ( r e g a r d l e s s of  questionnaire  items  or  items  added).  Questionnaire. twice,  The  As  noted  above,  once at the beginning  the  MQ  of the study,  was and  134  again  after  weeks.  p a r t i c i p a n t s had kept  For each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,  a memory d i a r y s i x scores  were  f o r four obtained.  F i v e o f these were scores  on the f i v e s c a l e s ; the s i x t h was  the  (total  sum o f these  relevant  scores  t o each o f the s c a l e s  c a l c u l a t i n g these  score).  Only  (see Study  those  items  3) were used i n  values.  B e h a v i o r a l measures The  behavioral  measures i n c l u d e d  returning  materials,  making phone c a l l s , and completing tasks as requested. Return seven the  sets  P a r t i c i p a n t s were  of materials.  consent  awarded week  materials.  With  and background  one p o i n t  the exception  information  for returning  o f the s p e c i f i e d  date  asked  and  of r e t u r n i n g  forms,  the m a t e r i a l s an  to return  additional  they  were  within  one  point f o r  r e t u r n i n g the m a t e r i a l s w i t h i n one day (as determined by the postmark) of the s p e c i f i e d  date.  The one day grace  period  allowed f o r the f a c t that m a i l pickup from most p o s t a l boxes typically afternoon. data  were  materials date  the  occurs  once a day a t most, u s u a l l y  When the postmark was treated  as m i s s i n g .  were mailed materials  could were  absent Note  or u n c l e a r ,  that  the  the date the  not be estimated received;  i n the l a t e  based  materials  that  on the were  postmarked were r e c e i v e d from one day t o two weeks a f t e r the postmarked  date.  One  point  was  awarded  form, based on when i t was returned, did  not r e t u r n t h e i r consent  since  f o r the consent i n d i v i d u a l s who  form were not i n c l u d e d  i n the  135  study. the  A total  of 13 p o i n t s c o u l d be awarded f o r r e t u r n i n g  materials. Make phone  calls.  P a r t i c i p a n t s were  asked  t o make a  t o t a l o f f i v e phone c a l l s ; f o u r e i t h e r the day before or the day the  a f t e r m a i l i n g t h e i r d i a r i e s , and the f i f t h a f t e r m a i l i n g last  calls,  two  questionnaires.  For each  p a r t i c i p a n t s were awarded  t o make the c a l l  o f the f i r s t  one p o i n t  f o r remembering  ( w i t h i n two days o f the s p e c i f i e d day) and  a second p o i n t f o r making i t on the s p e c i f i e d day. fifth  call,  the c a l l , within  four  one p o i n t  was  awarded  For the  f o r remembering to make  and a second p o i n t was awarded f o r making the c a l l  two  days  of when  the  questionnaires  were  mailed.  Thus, a t o t a l of 10 p o i n t s c o u l d be awarded. Complete t a s k s to p r o v i d e their  as s p e c i f i e d .  For each d i a r y entry,  awarded f o r g i v i n g the date; the time.  entries data  could  analysis  included diary,  starting and  this  vary  noted,  both  involved  point  was  the day  one p o i n t  was  a second p o i n t was awarded f o r because  within the  and  information. awarded  the number  of  entries  In a d d i t i o n ,  f o r each  of the week.  of d i a r y  between p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  proportion  the d i a r y on the s p e c i f i e d  giving  points  As  the s p e c i f i e d  one  asked  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 i n  phone messages.  giving  P a r t i c i p a n t s were  date;  of the  that  f o r each  following:  g i v i n g the date;  A possible  total  of 12  (3 p o i n t s per d i a r y X 4 weeks) c o u l d be awarded f o r task.  Finally,  every  time  participants  called  136  regarding  the d i a r y ,  message t h a t  they  were  asked  t o leave  a  short  i n c l u d e d t h e i r name, the time o f t h e c a l l , and  an i n d i c a t i o n of when the d i a r y was, o r would be, sent. p o i n t was awarded f o r each p a r t o f t h e message time, s t a t u s o f the d i a r y ) . rarely  given  Follow-up The  of eight points  was  c o u l d be  task.  interview first  p a r t of the i n t e r v i e w  memory f o r information awarded  ( i . e . name,  Since t h e time o f t h e c a l l  (see below), a t o t a l  awarded f o r t h i s  One  f o r each  investigator's  regarding  piece  assessed  t h e study.  of information  One p o i n t was  requested  name, the r e t u r n address  when the d i a r i e s were s t a r t e d ) .  retrospective  A total  (e.g.  the  f o r the materials, of 28 p o i n t s  could  be awarded. Results Co-operation Co-operation indicate,  using  did  best  their  ranged  from  participants indicated  was  assessed  asking  participants to  a f i v e - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e , how t o complete  always  the v a r i o u s  t o never.  indicated  they  by  "often"  they  tasks.  Sixty-one  "always"  completed  often  The s c a l e  percent  did their  the tasks  they  of the  best,  as  31%  well  p o s s i b l e , and 8% i n d i c a t e d they."sometimes" d i d t h e i r  as  best.  These f i n d i n g s are s i m i l a r t o those reported by Meacham and Leiman (1982, Study 2 ) .  137  The r e s u l t s from the v a r i o u s s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures  will  be presented  measures  will  be  among  i n two  considered  phases:  individually,  the v a r i o u s measures w i l l  each then  be presented.  of the  relations As was the  case i n Study 3, when e f f e c t s due t o age were examined, age was  first  treated  as  a  continuous  c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses were conducted. d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e age groups, the  previous  out.  study,  variable,  The sample was  and then  corresponding t o those used i n  and analyses  o f v a r i a n c e were  carried  The number of p a r t i c i p a n t s was 7, 17, 10, 15, and 13,  for  the young,  the young-middle  age, the middle  old-middle age, and the o l d groups,  age, the  respectively.  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the memory d i a r y , the MFQ, for  the b e h a v i o r a l measures,  and the follow-up  interview  each age group are presented i n Table 5.  S e l f - r e p o r t measures Memory d i a r y .  The number o f d i a r y e n t r i e s ranged  from  1 t o 64 across p a r t i c i p a n t s a c r o s s a l l f o u r weeks. The mean number  of e n t r i e s  ranged  from  9.2). entries  A  5.5  reported  over  the f o u r weeks)  to 60.0 with an o v e r a l l mean of 12.5 (sd =  repeated across  (averaged  measures  the  four  ANOVA weeks  on the number was  not  of  significant,  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t people were r e p o r t i n g approximately number o f unique  or unusual  number  entries  of diary  events  reported  analyses involving t h i s v a r i a b l e .  each week. was  used  diary  The  the same average  i n subsequent  138 Table 5 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s  ( i n parentheses) f o r s c o r e s on  the memory d i a r y , the MFQ. the b e h a v i o r a l measures, and t h e follow-up i n t e r v i e w f o r each age group  Measure  Age Group Y  Avg. no. of e n t r i e s Avg.  prop.  of e n t r i e s  Y-m  M  12. 89  18 .48  10 . 14  (6.48)  (14. 72)  (5. 44)  •87  .81  .76  (.07)  (•20)  (.26)  0 -m 9 .82 (2. 89)  O  a  9 . 00 (3 .73)  . 94  .95  (•08)  (.11)  6. 67  8 . 77  remembered MFQ  10 .43 (2. 82)  Return  10 . 00  materials* Make phone calls  5  (1. 29) 5 . 00 (3. 03)  Complete t a s k s as  11 . 67 (6. 62)  6 . 53 (2. 98) 10 . 24 (2. 17) 5 .71 (3. 43) 14 . 54 (3. 84)  6 . 80 (5 .51)  (4. 51)  (7. 11)  10 . 10  10 .33  10 .31  (2. 19)  (1. 80)  4 .85  3 .58  (2. 75)  (3. 44)  (3. 23)  13 .67  !2 .75  (4. 47)  (5. 63)  12 .80  11 .20  (3. 43)  (3. 99)  (2. 23) 4 . 30  12 . 18 (4. 92)  specified Follow-up interview Note:  a  Y =  17 . 14 (4. 98)  15 . 00 (3. 87)  11 . 54 (4. 14)  young (18 t o 30 years of age) ; Y-m = young-  middle age (31 t o 40 years of age); M = middle age (41 t o  55 y e a r s of age); 0-m  = old-middle age  (56 t o 65 years of  age); 0 = o l d (66 years of age and o l d e r ) . p o s s i b l e scores are: phone c a l l s ,  b  Total  f o r Return m a t e r i a l s , 13;  f o r Make  10; f o r Complete t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d , 20;  f o r the Follow-up  i n t e r v i e w , 28.  and  140  The  number  related  to  of  age,  entries  r(56)  =  reported -.33,  was  p. <  significantly  .01,  p a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t i n g fewer items than younger A  one-way  ANOVA  (using  the  v a r i a b l e ) was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , F(4, 53) = 2.89, p  was  significant,  groups  were  using  Scheffe's  procedure.  test  reported  f o r homogeneity  and the sample  unequal,  entries  independent  dependent  Since B a r t l e t t ' s  of  as  individuals.  and  .03.  number  groups  older  variable  <  average  age  with  sizes  opposed  to  the  of v a r i a n c e  i n the v a r i o u s age  follow-up comparisons  (as  as  the  were  conducted  Spjotvoll-Stoline)  None of the p a i r w i s e comparisons,  nor s e v e r a l of  the more meaningful complex comparisons, were s i g n i f i c a n t . The  proportion  of items remembered v a r i e d  from  0.0 t o  1.00 a c r o s s a l l four weeks and a c r o s s a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . mean p r o p o r t i o n remembered, averaged ranged  from  average  mean p r o p o r t i o n  measures  0.26  ANOVA  remembered proportion weeks.  was  to  on not  of e n t r i e s Analyses  remembered  1.00 was  the  a c r o s s the four weeks,  (between 0.87  proportion  significant, remembered was involving  were conducted  participants).  (sd = 0 . 1 7 ) .  average  the  The  A repeated of  suggesting similar  entries  that  the  over the four  proportion  u s i n g the average  The  over  of  items  the four  weeks. It report  had  been  expected  that  remembering approximately  e n t r i e s as younger  individuals.  older  participants  the same number  of  T h i s was not observed.  would diary Age  141  was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the p r o p o r t i o n of d i a r y e n t r i e s  remembered,  r(55)  =  .30,  p  <  .02  indicating  that  older  p a r t i c i p a n t s remembered more than younger p a r t i c i p a n t s . one-way  ANOVA  significant,  involving  F(4,52) =  heterogeneity computed  of  using  the  five p_ <  3.06,  variance,  Scheffe's  age  groups  .03.  Again,  follow-up  test.  Once  was  because  none  comparing  were  the  old-middle  young-middle  and  participants  significant.  o l d groups  Nevertheless,  and  middle  was  age  a  the  complex contrast  groups with  significant,  with  of  were  of  p a i r w i s e comparisons, nor s e v e r a l of the meaningful comparisons,  also  comparisons more,  A  the  i n d i c a t i n g they remembered more items  the  older  than  the  younger i n d i v i d u a l s . Memory hypothesized  Failures that  Questionnaire.  older  memory f a i l u r e s on the MFQ was  not observed:  age was  s c o r e s on the MFQ.  participants  Memory  not  would  than  before  was  conducted.  suggesting  it.  that  report  more This  A one-way ANOVA u s i n g scores on the age  group as the  It  was  MFQ  independent  significant.  Questionnaire.  by  been  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with  predicted  p a r t i c i p a n t s would be more aware of t h e i r (as measured  had  than younger p a r t i c i p a n t s .  as the dependent v a r i a b l e and v a r i a b l e was  It  the To No  that  memory  all  abilities  Memory Questionnaire)  after  test  measures MANOVA  this,  a repeated  significant  people's  results  perceptions  of  were  the  study  obtained,  their  memory  142  a b i l i t i e s d i d not change as a r e s u l t of keeping the d i a r i e s and  observing  of  a  week.  significant MQ1  and  many items they  This  conclusion  Table 6.  on To  standard  the  MQ  Two  Age  supported  group  on the  suggesting  was  one  by  course a  non-  scores  for  used  presented  on the MQ,  as  the  independent  in two  of  the  variable  and  f i v e s c a l e s were used as dependent v a r i a b l e s .  that  None the  of  scores  the on  the  total  analyses the  score  were  f o r each  significant,  Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  did  age.  measures  Return m a t e r i a l s .  I t was  a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s would  materials.  This  m a t e r i a l s was  was  expected t h a t  remember  obtained.  to  That  regardless  mail is,  the  Make phone c a l l s .  groups was  returning  An ANOVA was  not  of  various  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with age.  ANOVA i n v o l v i n g the f i v e age  whether the  are  on each of  f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  not d i f f e r as a f u n c t i o n of Behavioral  group  examine p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of age  administration.  way  age  ANOVAs were a l s o conducted on  age,  the  d e v i a t i o n s f o r scores  f o r each  MANOVAs were conducted,  scores  was  during  c o r r e l a t e d t - t e s t conducted on t o t a l  means and  scales  MQ.  forgot  MQ2.  The the  how  the  A one-  significant.  conducted t o determine  number of phone c a l l s made regarding  the  diary  v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of when p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o make them.  The  r e s u l t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t ,  i n d i c a t i n g that  the  143  Table 6 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s  f i n parentheses) f o r s c o r e s on  the MO f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r each age group  Scale  Age Group  3  Y  Y-m  M  O-m  O  25.43  27.65  24 . 60  28.33  27 . 08  (4.54)  (5.12)  (5.42)  (4.58)  25.86  26. 06  25.40  26.73  (2.73)  (6.17)  (4.43)  (5.97)  36.14  35.35  (3.76)  (7.53)  (5.81)  (4.80)  (4.99)  36.43  35.47  38.60  39.27  36.85  (2.37)  (6.97)  (4.22)  (3.43)  (5.71)  14.50  16. 00  16. 39  (4.91)  (5.25)  (5.53)  15. 60  16.15  (5.25)  (5.00)  b  Prospective memory  1  2  (3.12) 26 . 62 (3.97)  Achievement and m o t i v a t i o n 1  2  38 . 30  37.93  38 . 62  Change over time  1  2  14 .57  17 . 47  (4.93)  (4.61)  16. 14  18.18  (4.81)  (5.29)  14 . 00 (4.76)  (con't)  144 Table 6  (con't)  Scale  Age Group Y  Evaluation  Y-m  M  0-m  0  of  one's own memory  37 .29  1  36 . 18  33 .80  34 . 69  (5. 28)  (6. 99)  37 .86  35 .47  (7. 45)  (6. 69)  (8. 21)  (7. 32)  (7. 04)  20 .71  20 .35  21 .90  22 .47  22 .47  (4. 07)  (4. 89)  (6. 03)  (4. 37)  (4. 31)  2  (10. 15)  34 . 67  3 4 . 00  (7. 70) 33 .73  (7. 98) 34 . 00  Use o f strategies 1  19 .86  2  20 . 82  (4. 74) Total  1  (5. 31)  134 . 14 137 .00 (13 .69)  (12. 02) 2  a  T h e f i r s t value  the f i r s t  (15. 15)  (3. 57)  (4. 59)  133 . 10  139 .40  138 . 38  134 .70 (11. 07)  of the MQ  second r e f e r s t o t h e average score ( i . e . MQ2).  of the s c a l e s a r e :  23 .31  (15. 89) 138 . 33 (15. 72)  (13. 32) 136 .92 (12. 09)  r e f e r s t o the average score f o r  administration  administration  23 . 00  (5. 03)  (13 .38)  136 . 14 136 . 00 (13 .26)  Note:  22 .70  ( i . e . MQ1); the f o r t h e second  T o t a l p o s s i b l e scores  Prospective  f o r each  memory = 35; Achievement and  m o t i v a t i o n = 4 5; Change over time = 35; E v a l u a t i o n of one's own  memory = 60; Use of s t r a t e g i e s = 30; and T o t a l =  Y = young (18 t o 3 0 years of age;  Y-m  (31 t o 40 years of age); M = middle age age); O-m  = old-middle age  (66 years of age and  = young-middle  205. age  (41 t o 55 years of  (56 t o 65 years of age); 0 = o l d  older).  146  same  number  of  participants  calls  had been asked  a f t e r the d i a r i e s were It  were  was  made  regardless  of  whether  t o make them e i t h e r b e f o r e  or  returned.  predicted  that  regardless  of  age, a l l  p a r t i c i p a n t s would remember t o make a l l o f the phone c a l l s . A c o r r e l a t i o n between age and remembering t o make the f i v e phone  calls  P < .06. not  marginally  significant,  r(53)  =  -.22,  A one-way ANOVA i n v o l v i n g the f i v e age groups was  significant. A  summary  materials subjected not  was  and  score, make  based  the  on  phone  remembering t o r e t u r n the calls,  to a c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis.  significant,  participants regardless  thus  would of  supporting remember  age.  A  was  calculated  The c o r r e l a t i o n was  the hypothesis  to  perform  one-way  and  ANOVA  that a l l  these was  tasks  also  not  significant. I t was noted e a r l i e r t h a t some of the m a t e r i a l s were t o 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 t o 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) .  phone  calls  regarding particular interview). the  were  the  t o be  diary),  point  made while  i n the  on one  study  S i m i l a r l y , some of the a  p a r t i c u l a r day was  to  (the c a l l  Thus, some of the t a s k s  (those  be  made  regarding  (those at  a  the  pertaining to  d i a r i e s ) were t o be conducted w i t h i n a short p e r i o d of  time; others were t o be conducted over a longer time p e r i o d  147  (cf. To  Ellis',  1988,  d i s t i n c t i o n between  determine whether performance on  function  of  the  correlated  length  t-test  significant,  t(54)  of  was  time  steps  the  tasks  involved,  performed.  =  -9.49,  p_  <  and  varied a  The  pulses). as  two-tailed  results  .001,  were  indicating  that  p a r t i c i p a n t s were more l i k e l y t o perform a t a s k i f i t was be  done  within  longer time  a  short  third  entered  and  the  (6.7%) third  the  the  proportion  The  to  fourth  include  for  dates,  each nor  t o the  The  to  a  two  all  diaries.  but  one  entered For  both  participant  Most p a r t i c i p a n t s  a l l but  the  a l l but  12  entry.  i n each of  nine  time.  For  the  second,  participants  of  the  participants  Consequently,  proportion  also  times,  (10%) neither  will  f a c t that two  on  these two  t a s k s was  be  most  blank l i n e s , l a b e l l e d "Date"  appeared at the  top  of each  diary  manipulation would have been more e f f e c t i v e  participants the d i a r y )  opposed  further.  "Time", r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  page.  diary,  high performance r a t e  l i k e l y due  first  time f o r each e n t r y  diaries,  time  of  considered  the  diaries,  first  remembered  included  and  fourth  enter the  For  and  as  A l l participants  dates f o r a l l e n t r i e s .  remembered t o diaries.  time,  specified.  date f o r each entry on  the  of  to  period.  Complete t a s k s as the  period  a  simply been asked  t o put  instructions  for  the s p e c i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n somewhere at  the  top of the page f o r each e n t r y  (e.g.  i n the  had  ( c f . Dobbs & Rule, 1987).  It  148  was,  however, considered  provided  (e.g.  being kept  e s s e n t i a l t h a t date  i n order  to  ensure  that  information  the  diaries  f o r the a p p r o p r i a t e length of time) and,  information  p e r t a i n i n g t o when the  not be c o n s i d e r e d  f u r t h e r here,  be  were  although  e n t r i e s were made  such i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l  will prove  u s e f u l i n f u t u r e examinations of the d i a r i e s . The diary  number of p o i n t s awarded f o r remembering t o s t a r t a  on  the  information zero  to  specified  day,  ( i . e . date  three  and  (three  and  f o r g i v i n g the  day  being  of  the  the  week),  maximum  a c r o s s p a r t i c i p a n t s over the four weeks. p o i n t s awarded 0.73). the  A repeated  indicated  age  over the  significant,  pairwise  from score)  The mean number of  F(3,171) = 4.65,  comparisons  t h a t performance was  the  possible  four weeks) was  using  average  score  Tukey's  b e t t e r at  four week p e r i o d than at the end. and  ranged  2.4  (sd =  measures ANOVA on the average s c o r e  f o u r weeks was  Follow-up  the  (averaged  specified  over  the  the  The four  over  p <  .004.  HSD  test  beginning  of  r e l a t i o n between weeks  was  not  diary,  left  significant. All  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  called  regarding  the  t h e i r name (or t h e i r p a r t i c i p a n t number), and most i n d i c a t e d when  the  diary  participants  was,  or  remembered  would to  be,  specify  Consequently, t h i s p a r t of the task was consideration. provide  the  sent. the  Only time  two  (once).  dropped from f u r t h e r  A c o r r e l a t i o n between age and remembering t o  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  ANOVA, which examined performance on t h i s t a s k as a of age  group, was  Based  on  one-way function  not s i g n i f i c a n t .  findings  repeorted  by  West  (1984) ,  it  was  hypothesized t h a t o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s would be l e s s l i k e l y include than  additional  information  younger p a r t i c i p a n t s .  f o r completing the both on and  on  the the  possible the  To  tasks as  test  total  for leaving  score was  this  20).  tasks  summary  messages and this,  s p e c i f i e d was  t o t a l number of p o i n t s  individual  between  i n the  the  a  score  calculated,  based  f o r s t a r t i n g the  In accordance with the  score  and  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t both o l d and  diaries  summary  phone messages  discussed  above, age  was  (the  diary, total  results for  the  correlation  not  significant,  young p a r t i c i p a n t s were  t o complete the tasks as requested.  to  likely  A one-way ANOVA on t h i s  summary score a l s o f a i l e d to r e v e a l s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s . Comparisons between the s e l f - r e p o r t and of p r o s p e c t i v e In and  order  behavioral  8.  to  make comparisons measures  of  given  between  the  prospective The  self-report  memory,  r e s u l t s are  simple  presented  in  Note that i n these t a b l e s , a l l r e s u l t s t h a t  were s i g n i f i c a n t at the p < .05 However,  measures  memory  c o r r e l a t i o n s were conducted. Tables 7 and  behavioral  the  large  l e v e l or l e s s are  number of. c o r r e l a t i o n s  computed, some of these may  be  s i g n i f i c a n t by  In an e f f o r t to c o n t r o l familywise e r r o r r a t e  indicated. that  were  chance alone. (and  to e r r  on  150  the  side  of  l i b e r a l ) , only .001  or l e s s  being  too  those  results  were considered  d i s c u s s e d i n the t e x t . It  conservative,  was  t h a t were s i g n i f i c a n t t o be r e l i a b l e ,  hypothesized  that  i f the  7.  hypothesis  The t a b l e  at p <  and thus a r e  self-report  was obtained  i n g e n e r a l , the  Nevertheless,  a significant  between remembering  t o make phone  c a l l s and t h e average number o f d i a r y e n t r i e s r e p o r t e d . two not  s e l f - r e p o r t measures correlated,  and  The r e s u l t s are presented  indicates that,  was not supported.  correlation  too  a s s e s s i n g p r o s p e c t i v e memory,  they should be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d . Table  than  A l l other f i n d i n g s were ignored.  b e h a v i o r a l measures were both  in  rather  The  ( i . e . the d i a r y and the MFQ) were  although  the  behavioral  measures  were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o each other. In o r d e r t o determine whether scores on the metamemory questionnaire  (averaged  the MQ) were r e l a t e d the  various  the two a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of  t o s c o r e s on the d i a r y , the MFQ, and  behavioral  calculated.  across  measures,  The r e s u l t s  simple  a r e presented  correlations i n Table  8.  were The  t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t , by and l a r g e , scores on the MQ a r e not related  to  supporting  performance results  Nonetheless,  on  obtained  one c o r r e l a t i o n  the by  other  Dobbs  stands  measures, and  Rule  thus (1987).  out: P r o s p e c t i v e memory  is negatively  c o r r e l a t e d with scores on t h e MFQ, suggesting  that  awareness  greater  prospective  memory  tasks  of  one's  produces  ability fewer  to  memory  carry  out  failures.  Table 7 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Measure  1  Measure  2  3  4  5  6  1-Avg. no. of e n t r i e s 2-Avg. prop.  -.13  of e n t r i e s remembered 3-MFQ  -.03  4-Return  -.13  . 08  . 07  -.18  . 39  . 22  -.24*  .59**  . 29  . 04  -.22  .55**  materials 5-Make phone  calls  6-Complete  .73**  t a s k s as specified Note:  * p < .05.  vary from 48 t o 60.  ** p < .001.  The degrees o f freedom  Table 8 C o r r e l a t i o n s between s c a l e s on t h e MQ and the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Scale Measure  P  Avg. no.  A  C  -.06  -.28*  . 02  .22  -.25*  . 10  E  -.03  S  -.06  ipcl  -.16  of d i a r y entries Avg. prop.  .31**  -.08  . 16  of e n t r i e s remembered *** -. 39  MFQ Return  .36**  -.28*  -.34** -.16  .33  -.17  -.09  -.20  -.01  . 02  -.08  -.13  . 07  -.14  .03  . 11  -.13  . 05  -.02  • 01  . 05  -.21  materials Make phone calls Complete  -.04  t a s k s as specified Note:  a  P = P r o s p e c t i v e memory; A = Achievement and  m o t i v a t i o n ; C = Change over time; E = E v a l u a t i o n of one's own memory; S = Use of memory s t r a t e g i e s ; T = t o t a l sum of P, A, C, E, and S ) .  score  * E <-05.  ** g <.01.  freedom vary from 49 t o  *** g <.001. 60.  The degrees  Follow-up i n t e r v i e w It  had been hypothesized  t h a t performance on the i n t e r v i e w  would d i f f e r as a f u n c t i o n o f age, with younger p a r t i c i p a n t s remembering  more  observed:  age was  interview, age  older  participants.  negatively  related  r(60) = -.47, p_ < .001.  group  results,  than  as  the  independent  This  t o scores  was on the  A one-way ANOVA  variable  F(4,57) = 4.04, p < .006.  confirmed  Follow-up  using these  comparisons  using S c h e f f e ' s t e s t were c a l c u l a t e d , with only one p a i r w i s e comparison showing s i g n i f i c a n c e . 30 years age.  o f age scored  In a d d i t i o n ,  higher  a complex  Namely, p a r t i c i p a n t s 18 t o  than those comparison  participants  between  18 and 55 years  than  56  older.  those  and  was  significant:  o f age scored  Several  c o n t r a s t s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t Performance  56 t o 65 years of  additional  higher complex  results.  on the i n t e r v i e w  was not expected  t o be  r e l a t e d t o any o f the p r o s p e c t i v e memory measures ( i . e . diary,  the MFQ,  and the b e h a v i o r a l  scores  on the i n t e r v i e w  measures).  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Although  r e l a t e d t o the  number of d i a r y e n t r i e s , r(56) = .48, p < .001, they not  related  Moreover,  to  the  proportion  no s i g n i f i c a n t  of  correlation  entries was  behavioral  interview:  measures  were  correlated  were  remembered.  observed  scores on the i n t e r v i e w and scores on t h e MFQ. three  the  between  However, a l l with  the  f o r r e t u r n i n g m a t e r i a l s , r(60) = .29, p < .02;  155  for  making  phone  calls,  r(53)  =  .58,  p  <  .001;  completing t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d , r(49) = .35, g <  and  for  .006.  Discussion The people  f o u r t h study was  living  basis.  conducted  i n the community use  P r o s p e c t i v e memory was  report  and  behavioral  i n o r d e r t o examine  t h e i r memory on a d a i l y  assessed  measures.  using  both  Self-report  i n v o l v e d keeping a d a i l y d i a r y f o r four weeks and a  memory  questionnaire that  everyday  activities  Retrospective  memory  how  assessed  memory  with  respect  to  the  was  assessed  by  asking  self-  measures completing  failures  previous  for  week.  participants  s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the study. P r o s p e c t i v e memory Since the purpose of the d i a r y was  t o a s s e s s memory f o r  events t h a t were unique, unusual, or out of the o r d i n a r y , i t was  expected  that,  r e g a r d l e s s of  age,  participants  would  r e p o r t remembering approximately the same number of items i n their were  diaries.  Although  significant,  comparisons was  only  old participants.  possible items  to  and  that  one  significant.  middle age p a r t i c i p a n t s  Moscovitch  both  correlation  of  the  and  meaningful  an  follow-up  Namely, young-middle  remembered p r o p o r t i o n a l l y  ANOVA  age  less  and than  T h i s r e s u l t supports f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by  Minde the  remember  because of t h i s ,  a  (cited  older than  by  Moscovitch,  participants younger  1982).  c o u l d have had  participants,  and  It is fewer that  they c o u l d remember the same p r o p o r t i o n of  156  unusual or unique events as the seems  unlikely,  diary  entries  follow-up among  however, reported  comparisons  the  five  age  f u r t h e r i n Study It  was  sensitive taking and  though  remember  that  forgetting  along  they  may  tasks,  and  not vary  that  old  own  similar  be  as  events.  as  sensitivity  present  study  be  more  such  mailing  younger  as  letters  to  participants  failures The  everyone these  not  forgets  memory  for  It  reasonably s t a b l e .  from  had  weeks  that  daily was  routine  failures  does  t h a t young  perceptions the  been  MQ  and  However,  about a  that  change a f t e r  observing  how  the  from  people's  and  suggest  expected  of t h e i r memories may  forgotten. suggest  in their  results  four  to  These r e s u l t s o f f e r support  differ  The  for  hypothesis  Herrmann's (1983) c o n c l u s i o n  diary were  explored  activities,  the MFQ.  that  interpretation.  intentions  age,  differences  p a r t i c i p a n t s may  Memory  suggesting  memories.  the  to  o f f appliances,  likely  p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceptions keeping  related  of  messages than younger p a r t i c i p a n t s , even  p a r t i c i p a n t s do  their  number  r e s u l t s were  day-to-day  as a f u n c t i o n of age.  f o r C h a f f i n and  be  This  the  significant  These  older  turning  unusual  supported,  to  no  a c t i v i t i e s were assessed u s i n g not  although  appeared revealed  individuals.  5.  medication,  passing  because  groups.  expected to  younger  data  perceptions  many the are  157  People's correspond  t o how  situations. indicated  beliefs  about  they  their  expect  memory  t o perform  At t h e end o f the study, that  (presumably  they  felt  may  better  not always  i n a v a r i e t y of  several  about  participants  their  memories  r e l a t i v e t o t h e beginning o f t h e study)  because  they d i d not f o r g e t as much as they thought they d i d .  It is  p o s s i b l e , however, t h a t these i n d i v i d u a l s may have been very aware t h a t may,  they  were  therefore,  unconscious) case,  have  effort  i t would  participating made  a  i n a memory  greater  t o remember t h i n g s .  account  f o r the l a c k  study and  (although If this o f age  perhaps were the  differences  observed on the b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory. I t was expected t h a t a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s would remember t o mail  the m a t e r i a l s and make the phone c a l l s .  expected their  that  o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s would be l e s s  younger  specified.  I t was a l s o  counterparts  No  to  age d i f f e r e n c e s  carry were  performing the t a s k s o r completing  out  likely  the  observed  tasks  than as  either for  the t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d ,  thus c o n f i r m i n g f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by West (1984; 1988). It  was  hypothesized  that  the v a r i o u s  p r o s p e c t i v e memory would be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d . observed.  One might  argue  that  measures  of  T h i s was not  because the d i a r y  and the  MFQ were r e t r o s p e c t i v e measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory, they may  not  correlate  Kvavilashvili, the  case,  with  the  behavioral  1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982).  though,  the two s e l f - r e p o r t  measures ( c f . I f t h i s were  measures  should be  158  c o r r e l a t e d with each other and with scores on the i n t e r v i e w . Neither  result  was  obtained.  correlated  with  prospective  memory tasks  that  the  i n contrast  measuring behavioral  measures  materials,  making  if  they  were  memory  ability  to  explanation,  t o some  of prospective phone  calls,  MFQ  was  carry  out  Dobbs  t h e MFQ i s  extent.  memory  and  suggesting  The  of  and  completing  prospective  Rule's  three  ( i . e . returning tasks  r e l a t e d , as one would  a l l measures  with  the  as measured by the MQ,  significantly  were  accordance  perceived  t o t h e above  prospective  specified)  Further,  (1987)  as  expect  memory.  In  findings,  no  c o r r e l a t i o n s were observed between scores on the metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the b e h a v i o r a l measures. R e t r o s p e c t i v e memory Retrospective structured As  memory  interview  predicted,  was  assessed  administered  younger  of  involving  various  Kausler,  several  studies  laboratory  semi-  higher  on  this  These r e s u l t s support the of  tasks  retrospective (for a  memory  review,  see  1985).  It  was  hypothesized  that  if  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t the  a  a t the end o f t h e study.  p a r t i c i p a n t s scored  measure than o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . findings  using  various  correlated  prospective with  retrospective  scores  memory).  memory on  prospective  processes,  measures  the i n t e r v i e w  Although  should  scores on not be  (a measure  the s e l f - r e p o r t  and  of  measures  159  supported It could not  t h e hypothesis,  the b e h a v i o r a l  be argued, though, t h a t t h e follow-up  a particularly  sensitive test  because i t i s not c l e a r that the  measures d i d n o t .  information  assessed  interview i s  of retrospective  participants actually  by t h i s  measure.  memory learned  F o r example,  s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s i n c e they d i d not have to w r i t e  the address on the r e t u r n  (conscious)  envelopes,  knowledge of what t h e address was.  they  had no  Had a b e t t e r  measure o f r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory been used, a more c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s may have been obtained. was designed t o address t h i s i s s u e i n g r e a t e r  The f i f t h detail.  study  160 STUDY 5 The  fifth  performance  study  on p r o s p e c t i v e  were  used  the  relation  between  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  i n Study 4 ,  As was t h e case measures  examined  tasks.  both s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l  to  assess  prospective  memory.  R e t r o s p e c t i v e memory was assessed u s i n g a number o f standard l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s and the s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d  interview.  Method Participants The p a r t i c i p a n t s were 134 i n d i v i d u a l s females) years)  between who  19 and 84 years  were  recruited  (44 males and 90  of age  through  (mean  age 49.02  community  centers,  s e n i o r ' s groups, r a d i o i n t e r v i e w s , and advertisements in  community  study. 15.28  newspapers.  They had between 6 and 22 years years).  Socioeconomic  Hodge-Siegel-Rossi &  None had served  Smith,  Occupational  1985).  In  themselves t o be very eyesight  level  as average  healthy:  i n the previous  o f education  was estimated  participants  (mean  u s i n g the  Prestige Equivalents  general,  placed  (Davis  considered  91% r a t e d t h e i r h e a l t h and  or above,  81% r a t e d  their  hearing  as  with  educational  average or above. Age level, less  r(132)  than  considered with  was  significantly =  three  .16, p < percent  further.  self-report  correlated  .03, but s i n c e o f the v a r i a n c e ,  i t accounted f o r i t will  not be  Age was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d  r a t i n g s o f general h e a l t h , r(132) = .30, p  161  <  .001,  and  eyesight,  self-ratings  of  r(132)  eyesight  =  -.17,  and  r e l a t e d , r(132) = .29, p <  p_ <  hearing  .05.  were  Finally,  significantly  .001.  Seven a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s withdrew from the These  individuals  d i d not  differ  the study with r e s p e c t t o age, or socioeconomic  from  those  who  study.  completed  number of years of  education  level.  Materials Memory  performance  b e h a v i o r a l , and Self-report  was  assessed  using  self-report,  l a b o r a t o r y measures. measures.  The  three  self-report  measures  used i n the previous study were a l s o used i n Study 5 ( i . e . a d i a r y of unique or unusual  events,  the Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  and the Memory F a i l u r e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . Behavioral  measures.  As  was  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to perform memory t a s k s included:  t h a t could be  returning  scored  the  d i a r y ; making two  two  l a b o r a t o r y s e s s i o n s ; keeping  each of the two  case  in  a number of  namely  phone c a l l s , two  the  one  Study  4,  prospective  objectively.  information,  and  the  These  tasks  consent  form  f o r each of  appointments,  l a b o r a t o r y s e s s i o n s ; and completing  one  the for  t a s k s as  specified. Laboratory a  number  of  r e c a l l i n g the (Modified  tasks.  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o complete  laboratory-based  memory  i n f o r m a t i o n contained  Logical  Memory) ,  tests,  i n two  recalling  including  s h o r t paragraphs  three  sequences  of  162  either  eight  recalling  or  nine  a series  numbers  of twelve  r e c o g n i z i n g and r e c a l l i n g pictures from  o f people  (Serial  items  Digit  (Buschke  Learning),  Cued  Recall),  i n f o r m a t i o n about p r e v i o u s l y  (Names and  l i s t s they had produced  Faces),  and  seen  recalling  items  (the Shopping and Day's Events  lists). The  Modified  Logical  Memory  test  consisted  Babcock and P o r t l a n d paragraphs presented i n Lezak 438) and reproduced i n Appendix G. a  disaster  that  occurred  in  a  of  the  (1983, p.  Both paragraphs d e s c r i b e specified  location  at  a  learning  a  p a r t i c u l a r time. The  Serial  sequence  of  Digit  either  Learning  eight  or  task nine  Hamsher, Varney and Spreen, 1983).  involved numbers  (see  Benton,  P a r t i c i p a n t s with e i t h e r  l e s s than 12 years of e d u c a t i o n or over 64 years of age were g i v e n the eight-number 12  years  given  of  sequence; those with e i t h e r more than  education or  less  the nine-number sequence  There  were  three  alternate  than  64  years of  ( c f . Benton forms  for  age  were  e t . a l . , 1983).  each  because some of the forms seemed more d i f f i c u l t  length,  but  than o t h e r s ,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were given a l l t h r e e forms using a L a t i n square design. For  the  were chosen the  Buschke  Cued  Recall  task,  unrelated  words  from an equal number of d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s i n  B a t t i g and Montague (1969) norms.  identified  12  as  a member of a unique  Each item was category.  easily  A l l of the  163  words had  been produced  i n the norms. 10 cm  The  (2" X 4")  particular  50%  cards.  used  insect/butterfly;  The  were:  participants  part  the  instrument/accordion;  utensil/skillet;  metal/bronze;  occupation/banker;  category l a b e l s and  musical  cooking  flower/daffodil;  or l e s s of the  items were typed i n the c e n t e r of 5 cm X  white  items  by  toy/rattle;  four-legged animal/leopard;  of  the  body/ankle;  type  of  b u i l d i n g / c o t t a g e ; f r u i t / s t r a w b e r r y ; and b i r d / d o v e . In  the  Names and  Faces  p i c t u r e s of i n d i v i d u a l s 17 years of age chosen  task,  (10 males,  were used  twenty  black  10 females)  as s t i m u l i .  The  and  white  approximately pictures  from a high school year book from the mid  1970s.  were All  of the males had s h o r t h a i r ; a l l of the females had a t l e a s t shoulder  length hair.  females wore g l a s s e s . were  of  Asian  similar, and  Five  of  the  Four p i c t u r e s  students.  Dress  males  and  two  (two male, two styles  were  of  female)  also  f o r example, a l l of the males were wearing  ties.  Ten  were chosen  names, occupations, and  f o r use  in t h i s task.  The  personality  very shirts traits  names f o r the males  were L e s t e r , Wade, Eugene, Vance, and Darren.  Those f o r the  women were V a l e r i e , C o l l e e n , Pamela, Mandy, and J u d i t h . of  the  Montague  names  (1969)  neurologist, counsellor, swimmer.  had  a  frequency  category  violinist, novelist,  of  norms.  one The  in  the  Battig  occupations  anthropologist,  reporter,  the  shopkeeper,  All and were  optometrist, gardener  Again, a l l of these had a frequency of one  and  i n the  164  Battig were  and Montague chosen  from  (1969) norms. t h e Goldberg  Descriptive Adjectives social the  desirability  clumsy  3.05,  dedicated  were:  aloof  7.74,  1710  Taxonomy  (Goldberg, 1977) based  ratings.  ten adjectives  The p e r s o n a l i t y  3.16,  fussy  knowledgeable  of  Trait  on t h e i r mean  The mean r a t i n g s tactless  traits  f o r each o f  2.38, a r r o g a n t 2.67, 3.44,  7.94,  easygoing  cheerful  7.39,  8.24, and  c o n s c i e n t i o u s 8.41. The the  Shopping  participants.  participant  bank).  Shopping  would  lists list  f o r on a r e g u l a r  out r e g u l a r l y  The Day's Events  participant (e.g.  The  shopped  t h a t were c a r r i e d or  and Day's Events  produced  contained basis  items  and/or  by a  errands  (e.g. going t o t h e l i b r a r y  list  normally c a r r y  were  contained a c t i v i t i e s the out d u r i n g a t y p i c a l day  g e t t i n g up, having b r e a k f a s t , going t o work).  Procedure As i n t h e f i r s t two  c o p i e s o f a consent  envelope. and  study, i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s were sent form and a stamped,  They were asked t o complete  m a i l i t back t o the i n v e s t i g a t o r  They were a l s o  asked  one copy of the form by a s p e c i f i e d  t o phone the i n v e s t i g a t o r  consent form was mailed t o arrange a time two  testing  self-addressed  sessions.  Each  of  these  the day the  f o r the f i r s t of sessions  approximately one and a h a l f hours and was conducted in  the l a b o r a t o r y  or i n the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  was most convenient f o r the i n d i v i d u a l ) .  date.  home  took either  (whichever  165  Session  1.  In the f i r s t  session,  participants  were  asked t o put t h e i r name, address and phone number on a 3" by 5"  (7.5 cm by 12.5 cm).  both  the  participant  Questionnaire complete MQ1  (MQ1).  information  form  asked and  H a l f the p a r t i c i p a n t s  to  complete  the  were  Memory  asked  to  t h e index card and i n f o r m a t i o n form i n pen and the  in pencil;  first  They were a l s o  two  procedure  the other h a l f  forms was  in pencil followed  were  and  in  asked  the  order  t o complete  MQ1 to  in  the  ink.  examine  This whether  p a r t i c i p a n t s would remember t o switch w r i t i n g instruments a t the a p p r o p r i a t e time  ( c f . the "red pen t e s t "  o f Dobbs and  Rule, 1987) . Participants Memory t a s k . stories  that  were  They were t o l d  that,  The  Babcock  (during  participants story was  which  to r e c a l l  paragraph  were  they  again  recorded,  and  after  asked  was  always  story  was  read  first,  A f t e r a 15 t o 20 minute other  to recall order.  the tapes  each  articles.  as much o f i t as they  performed  as they could, i n e i t h e r  tape  Logical  they would be read two s h o r t  f o l l o w e d by the P o r t l a n d paragraph. delay  the M o d i f i e d  immediately  they would be asked  could.  given  they were t o t h i n k of as newspaper  They were a l s o t o l d read,  then  as  Each  were  activities), much  of  recall  later  each  attempt  transcribed  verbatim. A f t e r both paragraphs time,  participants  were  had been r e c a l l e d given  f o r the  the Names and  Faces  first task.  166  They  were  told  information  about  immediately to  recall  they  would  10  people.  shown They  as much o f t h a t  a time.  were  also  i n f o r m a t i o n as they  Rate  ( f i v e males,  o f p r e s e n t a t i o n was  o c c u p a t i o n , and p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t picture. picture  pictures  and  given  told  that,  f o l l o w i n g t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , they would be asked  were then shown t e n p i c t u r e s at  be  The p a r t i c u l a r were  randomly  c o u l d . They  f i v e females), one  self-paced.  A name,  were a s s o c i a t e d with  characteristics  determined  assigned t o  f o r every  each each  participant.  Once a l l the p i c t u r e s had been presented, p a r t i c i p a n t s were shown  them  again, one a t a time,  much i n f o r m a t i o n about They were encouraged same  information  picture.  each  Then,  person  t o guess,  could in  be  and asked  as they c o u l d  and were  attributed  order  to  t o p r o v i d e as remember.  informed to  more  determine  t h a t the than  whether  one more  i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i c i p a n t than he o r she had  been a b l e t o r e c a l l  participant  was  occupations,  asked  and  when the p i c t u r e s to  recall  personality  as  were shown, the  many  traits  as  of  the  they  names, could,  independently of the p i c t u r e s . Once immediate memory f o r the Names and Faces task had been  assessed,  lists: as and  (a) a l i s t  grocery (b) a  during  participants  items, list  asked  to  construct  two  of o b j e c t s they would normally buy, such toiletries,  of a c t i v i t i e s  t h e course  were  stamps they  of a t y p i c a l  (the Shopping  would  day,  such  normally  list), perform  as g e t t i n g  up,  167  having b r e a k f a s t , and going t o work (the Day's Events If  participants  items,  they  regularly  indicated  were  were  d i d not normally  encouraged  performed  Participants  they  to  (e.g. going told  that  include  two  buy  or  had  to  "fruits", were  specify  each  "vegetables",  asked  to  item  lists  etc.).  construct  construct the l i s t s both  lists  recall  could  Events  list  They  sequences  contained  on  the  were asked list  they  followed by r e c a l l of t h e i r second  list.  were t o l d of  sequence  they  eight  or  would nine  They were a l s o  sequence, asked  f o r delayed r e c a l l  to recall  again,  asked  be  read  a total  numbers  told  to had  of the  of t h r e e  be read  was one  as much of i t as they c o u l d , read for recall,  and so on, u n t i l i t They would then  be read t h e next number sequence and the procedure The numbers  Learning  (whichever  they would  had been repeated c o r r e c t l y twice i n a row.  repeated.  after  on the M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory task.  appropriate) .  the  first,  Immediately  Next, p a r t i c i p a n t s were g i v e n the S e r i a l D i g i t task.  "meat",  participants  participants  P a r t i c i p a n t s were then asked paragraphs  items,  the other h a l f were asked t o  completed,  information  written f i r s t ,  Day's  writing  be  of the  i n the r e v e r s e order.  had been  the  Half  the  f o l l o w e d by the Shopping l i s t ;  (e.g. by  they  library).  reasonably g e n e r a l , although i f they i n c l u d e d g r o c e r y they  many  errands  t o the bank the  list).  would be  i n each sequence were read aloud t o  the p a r t i c i p a n t a t the r a t e o f approximately  one per second.  168  Once a l l o f the numbers i n the sequence had been presented, the p a r t i c i p a n t self-paced,  t o repeat  and p a r t i c i p a n t s  responses. either  attempted  The  after  next  Recall  were allowed t o c o r r e c t  sequence  the p a r t i c i p a n t  of had  sequence on two c o n s e c u t i v e t r i a l s Approximately  i t aloud.  numbers  was  correctly  15 t o 20 minutes  their  presented  recalled  o r a f t e r 12  was  the  trials.  a f t e r the p i c t u r e s  had  o r i g i n a l l y been presented, the p a r t i c i p a n t s were then g i v e n a delayed  recall  test  f o r the Names and Faces  were shown a l l 20 p i c t u r e s one,  were  picture  to  to  before.  picture, person  asked  guess.  whether  thought  they were t o r e c a l l  as they c o u l d .  recall  they  had  told  the  shown the  that  were  encouraged  they c o u l d r e p o r t  one s t i m u l u s .  had been presented, p a r t i c i p a n t s  as many of the names,  seen  had been  participants  same i n f o r m a t i o n f o r more than the p i c t u r e s  they  as much i n f o r m a t i o n about the  Again,  They were a l s o  They  (10 o l d and 10 new), and f o r each  indicate  I f they  task.  the  Once a l l  of  were asked t o  occupations, and  personality  t r a i t s as they c o u l d . Finally, had  been  their  approximately 15 t o 20 minutes  constructed, participants  Shopping  and Day's Events  were  lists  a f t e r the l i s t s asked  to  recall  i n the same order as  before. Once given  these  tasks  a memory d i a r y  Approximately  half  were  and  completed,  asked  participants  t o keep  o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s  were  i t f o r one week.  were asked  to s t a r t  169  the  diary  the same day; the o t h e r s were asked  the  next day.  to start i t  As was the case i n Study 4, p a r t i c i p a n t s were  asked t o i n d i c a t e the date and the day o f the week when they started each  the d i a r y ,  t o put the date and time a t t h e t o p o f  e n t r y , and t o f i l l  out one i n f o r m a t i o n sheet f o r each  unique or unusual event they intended t o do d u r i n g t h e day. P a r t i c i p a n t s were requested t o r e t u r n the d i a r y second t e s t s e s s i o n . were asked t o c a l l Half  d u r i n g the  In a d d i t i o n t o keeping the d i a r y , t o arrange  o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s  f o r the second  were  asked  test  t o make  they  session.  the c a l l  the  next day, h a l f were asked t o make i t t h r e e days l a t e r . completed the f i r s t t e s t Session  2.  session.  In the second  session,  f i r s t g i v e n the Buschke Cued R e c a l l task. this  a t h r e e by four  learning  phase.  participants. at  a time,  identify, items  participants  were  The procedure f o r  t a s k was s i m i l a r t o t h a t used by Buschke (1984) •.  12 s t i m u l u s cards were p l a c e d i n f r o n t in  This  array  The  and were  same  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s  visible  arrangement  throughout the  was  used  for  all  The category l a b e l s were then p r e s e n t e d , one  and p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked the item  were  The  that  identified  belonged in  repeated search of the a r r a y .  a  t o search f o r , and  t o the category.  random  order  to  These  encourage  C o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the  items i n d i c a t e d the p a r t i c i p a n t could understand and use the category to  l a b e l s t o name the items, thus making i t p o s s i b l e  use the same l a b e l s t o e l i c i t  cued r e c a l l .  Following a  170  60  second  distractor  backwards  from  100 aloud,  verbally recall recall still one  available  Total  provided  f o r any recall  an estimate  during  retrieved, next  free  items  have  trial.  been Six  later,  Failures  Finally, in  Study  debriefed  of free  recall.  20  Questionnaire  asked  to  Order o f o f items  were presented, during  and cued  free  recall)  available i n  A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s remembered a l l items  a seventh t r i a l  Memory  counted  recall  of the number o f items  immediately; minutes  were  not r e t r i e v e d  (the sum  or cued  i t would  recall  they  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  In an e f f o r t t o e l i c i t  memory on each t r i a l . either  which  i n memory, c a t e g o r y l a b e l s  time,  recall.  during  as many o f the items as p o s s i b l e .  was noted.  at a  task,  after  Had an item not been  presented recall  again  trials  b e f o r e the were  given  was g i v e n approximately  participants  Questionnaire  had  (MFQ)  15 t o  completed  and  the  the  Memory  ( f o r the second time, MQ2). the s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d , follow-up i n t e r v i e w used  4, was administered. and thanked  The p a r t i c i p a n t s  were  then  for their participation.  Summary and p r e d i c t i o n s In consent  summary, form  appointments show  up  by  participants a  were  specified  (one f o r each  a t the appointed  another t i m e ) ; t o complete  asked:  time;  to  t o mail phone  o f the two t e s t times  their  f o r two  sessions) ; to  (or t o phone  and  arrange  some i n f o r m a t i o n i n i n k and other  i n f o r m a t i o n i n p e n c i l ; t o w r i t e t h e date and t h e day o f the  171  week on t h e f i r s t and  the time  diary  page of t h e i r d i a r y  o f each  i n t h e second  number o f standard Prospective the  MFQ.  i n the d i a r y ;  session;  as the date  to return  and f i n a l l y ,  t o complete  a  memory was assessed both by t h e d i a r y and  whether  memory  was  participants  also  assessed  completed  the  by  assigned  (e.g. m a i l i n g i n the consent form, making phone c a l l s ,  f i l l i n g out forms, and i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n diaries) using  their  memory t a s k s .  Prospective  determining tasks  entry  as w e l l  as i n s t r u c t e d .  both  Retrospective  t h e standard  memory  i n the  memory was assessed  tasks  and t h e  follow-up  interview. Based  on  the f i n d i n g s  p r e d i c t i o n s were made.  obtained  First,  report  i n Study  4,  several  i t was expected t h a t younger  participants  would  more  diary  participants,  but t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n  entries  than  older  o f e n t r i e s remembered  would be h i g h e r  f o r o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t f o r younger ones.  Second,  on the MFQ were not expected  scores  f u n c t i o n o f age.  perceptions  of  measured  by t h e MQ)  would  behavioral This  were  their  of  returning  own  differ  not expected  measures  included  as a  T h i r d , there was no reason t o expect that  people's  differences  t o vary  memory  over  time.  Fourth,  f o r completing  prospective materials,  memory  as  and completing  tasks  Fifth,  (as age  the v a r i o u s requested.  making the phone  showing up f o r appointments, i n a s p e c i f i e d manner.  abilites  several  calls, of the  i t was expected that i f  172  the  d i a r y , the MFQ and t h e v a r i o u s  all  measures of p r o s p e c t i v e  be  significantly  that  younger  memory performance,  correlated.  Sixth,  p a r t i c i p a n t s would  p a r t i c i p a n t s on t h e follow-up Seventh, based (see Kausler,  b e h a v i o r a l measures are  i t was a l s o  score  higher  would  expected  than  older  interview.  on s e v e r a l s t u d i e s o f memory and aging  1985, f o r a review),  i t was hypothesized  younger  p a r t i c i p a n t s would  standard  memory tasks than o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Eighth,  they  perform  i t was p r e d i c t e d  better  that  that  on a l l of the  i f the i n t e r v i e w  was a  measure of r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory as suggested above, i t would be r e l a t e d t o performance on standard memory t e s t s . F i n a l l y , s i n c e the p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s obtained 4  for  the  hypothesized  interview that  were  i f prospective  i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t processes, retrospective (Kvavilashvili,  equivocal,  memory  it  i n Study  was  again  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  performance on p r o s p e c t i v e and  tasks  would  not  be  correlated  1987; Meacham & Leiman, 1982). Scoring  S e l f - r e p o r t measures Memory d i a r y . respect  t o the t o t a l  remembered  and  number  forgotten  e n t r i e s remembered. vary  The memory d i a r y was scored of e n t r i e s  items),  and  both  with  (including  both  the p r o p o r t i o n  of  S i n c e t h e t o t a l number of e n t r i e s c o u l d  between p a r t i c i p a n t s , the p r o p o r t i o n ,  rather  absolute number, of items remembered was used.  than the  173  Memory  Failures  Questionnaire.  As  t o t a l number o f memory f a i l u r e s r e p o r t e d i n a l l analyses Memory  on the MFQ was used  Questionnaire.  S i x scores  o f the MQ,  five  were  obtained  f o r the v a r i o u s  for  scales,  one f o r the t o t a l .  Behavioral  measures  Return two  4, the  involving this variable.  each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and  i n Study  materials.  things:  their  individuals  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  consent  form and t h e i r  were not considered  they returned  their  not  scored;  the  s p e c i f i e d date.  consent  to return  diary.  Because  t o be i n the study  form,  i t s return,  unless  as such, was  one p o i n t was awarded f o r r e t u r n i n g the form by As i n the previous  study,  a one day  grace p e r i o d was used when the consent form was returned mail.  I n d i v i d u a l s were asked t o r e t u r n  the second s e s s i o n . diary,  and a  session.  their diary  by  during  One p o i n t was awarded f o r r e t u r n i n g the  second  point,  f o r returning  i t during  the  Thus, a t o t a l of three p o i n t s could be awarded f o r  r e t u r n i n g the m a t e r i a l s . Make phone c a l l s . -  phone  calls;  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o make two  one was t o be made when  they  returned  their  consent form, and the second, e i t h e r one or three days a f t e r the  first  awarded  test  session.  f o r making  s p e c i f i e d day).  the  For each call  call,  (within  two  one  point  days  o f the  A second p o i n t was awarded i f the c a l l  made as requested.  For the f i r s t  call,  was  was  t h i s meant on, o r  174  by,  the  date  second c a l l ,  the  consent  form  was  to  be  mail.  i t meant on the s p e c i f i e d day.  For  the  A t o t a l of four  p o i n t s c o u l d be awarded f o r making the phone c a l l s . Keep appointments. appointments,  one  awarded  keeping  for  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o keep two  f o r each  test  each  session.  appointment  One (or  point  phoning  c a n c e l l i n g an appointment), f o r a maximum o f two Complete to  t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d .  and  points.  Participants  were asked  complete s e v e r a l of the tasks i n a s p e c i f i e d manner.  each d i a r y date  and  entry,  the  p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  time.  Because  the number  was  For  t o note both the of  entries  varied  between p a r t i c i p a n t s , scores were based on the p r o p o r t i o n of e n t r i e s t h a t i n c l u d e d the s p e c i f i e d Participants p a r t i c u l a r day, the  d i a r y was  point  was  were a l s o  asked  information. t o begin the d i a r y  on a  and t o put the date and the day of the week  started  awarded  on the f i r s t  page o f the d i a r y .  f o r doing each p a r t  of t h i s  task,  One for a  possible t o t a l of three points. At  the  participants card,  the  beginning were asked  Participant  of  the  first  t o complete Information  test  session,  t h r e e forms  (an index  Form,  and  the  Memory  Questionnaire) . They were asked t o complete  both the index  card  or p e n c i l ,  then  and the i n f o r m a t i o n switch  writing  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . One the  form i n e i t h e r pen  instruments  p o i n t was  forms as s p e c i f i e d ,  to  complete  the  and  Memory  awarded f o r completing each of  and an a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t was  awarded  175  if  the p a r t i c i p a n t  b e f o r e completing  remembered to switch w r i t i n g a l l three  forms.  A total  instruments  of f o u r p o i n t s  c o u l d be awarded f o r t h i s task. As  to  put  their  name, address, and phone number on an index c a r d .  One  point  was  noted,  participants  were  also  awarded f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g :  address, (either  the  city,  their  asked  t h e i r name, a s t r e e t  p o s t a l code,  a t home or a t work),  and  a  phone  for a possible total  number of  five  points. E x c l u d i n g the date and (which  were scored  points  could  be  time data  f o r the d i a r y e n t r i e s  i n terms of p r o p o r t i o n s ) , a t o t a l awarded  for  completing  the  of  tasks  12 as  specified. Laboratory  tasks  Modified two  Logical  paragraphs was  verbatim.  Memory.  recorded  Each paragraph  Participants'  on tape  then  recall  of  the  later transcribed  contained 21 idea u n i t s and p o i n t s  were awarded f o r remembering the g i s t of each idea u n i t , f o r a t o t a l p o s s i b l e score of 42 p o i n t s ( c f . Lezak, 1983). allocation Appendix  of  points  described  in  greater  detail  in  G.  Two  judges  scored a l l of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n s  immediate  and  Interjudge  reliability  overall  is  The  delayed  reliability  of  recall ranged .95.  of  from The  both .91  average  to  ( i . e . both paragraphs).  .97,  score  with  awarded  an by  176  the  two  judges  was  used  in  a l l analyses  involving  this  measure. Serial  Digit  Learning.  each c o r r e c t t r i a l did  Two  points  and f o r each t r i a l  not have to be a d m i n i s t e r e d .  were  awarded f o r  (up t o T r i a l  One  p o i n t was  12)  that  awarded f o r  t r i a l s i n which one number was m i s s i n g , added or s u b s t i t u t e d to  an otherwise c o r r e c t r e c a l l  or when the p o s i t i o n s of two  c o n s e c u t i v e numbers were r e v e r s e d The  total  possible  The  average  score  total  score  ( c f . Benton e t a l . ,  f o r each  number  f o r the t h r e e  sequence  alternate  1983). was  24.  forms  was  used i n a l l analyses i n v o l v i n g t h i s measure. Buschke item  correctly  (Buschke, free  Cued R e c a l l . recalled,  1984).  recall  One  point  either  was  by  awarded  free  or  f o r each  cued  recall  The average number of items remembered by  across  measure o f immediate  the  first  recall.  six  trials  was  used  as  a  The number of items remembered  by f r e e r e c a l l on the seventh t r i a l was used as a measure of delayed  recall.  Shopping  and  Day's Events  lists.  and d e l a y e d r e c a l l of these l i s t s , each item c o r r e c t l y original these  list.  lists  proportion (considered  recalled  Because  varied  one p o i n t was awarded f o r  number  and  of items c o r r e c t l y  of  items  between  recalled  together) were used  t h i s measure.  immediate  a c c o r d i n g t o the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  the  within  For both  produced  participants,  on both these  i n a l l analyses  on the  lists  involving  177  Names and Faces. personality t r a i t s scored  i n two  R e c a l l of the names, occupations and  a s s o c i a t e d with each o f t h e p i c t u r e s was  ways.  First,  one p o i n t  was  awarded f o r  c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l i n g the name, occupation, and t r a i t picture,  f o r a possible total  Since  participants  trait  without  information,  o f t h r e e p o i n t s per p i c t u r e .  o f t e n remembered  a name,  remembering the person this  scoring  method  occupation o r  a s s o c i a t e d with  yielded  a  method  was used:  one p o i n t  was  that  conservative  estimate o f the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n remembered. second  f o r each  awarded  Thus, a f o r each  name, o c c u p a t i o n or t r a i t t h a t was c o r r e c t l y remembered, f o r a possible total this  latter  involving  of t h i r t y  method  this  were  variable.  points. used  Scores  obtained  i n a l l of  the  R e c o g n i t i o n memory  using  analyses  f o r both  new  and p r e v i o u s l y seen p i c t u r e s was a l s o assessed. Follow-up the f i r s t one  study)  As was the case  p a r t of the follow-up  point  requested  interview.  being  awarded  i n Study 4, only  i n t e r v i e w was scored,  f o r each  piece  of  with  information  (e.g. the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s name, t h e purpose of the  f o r a p o s s i b l e t o t a l of 36 p o i n t s . Results  Co-operation Co-operation  was  assessed  by  asking  participants  to  i n d i c a t e , u s i n g a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e , how o f t e n they d i d t h e i r best t o complete the v a r i o u s t a s k s . indicated  they  "always"  Seventy-seven  d i d t h e i r best,  percent  20% i n d i c a t e d  they  178  " o f t e n " d i d , and they  i n d i c a t e d they "sometimes" d i d the  r e s u l t s are presented i n two  considered  r e l a t i o n s among the  age  e f f e c t s were  measures.  first  and  the  groups  data  were  were c a r r i e d out were  studies. 36,  age,  the  The 30,  same  As  examination  i n previous age  as  a  re-analyzed.  those  studies,  continuous age  analyses  2 3 f o r the  old-middle age,  and  of  l a t t e r case.  The  five  used  two  previous  in  the  age  number of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n each group were and  of  Correlational  former instance;  i n the  as  an  Each measure  divided into five discrete  analyses were conducted i n the variance  by  examined using  v a r i a b l e , then the sample was groups,  phases.  i n d i v i d u a l l y , followed  the  20,  best  could. The  is  3%  young, young-middle age,  o l d groups,  25,  middle  respectively.  S e l f - r e p o r t measures Memory d i a r y . the  Means and  number of d i a r y  standard d e v i a t i o n s  e n t r i e s reported  and  d i a r y e n t r i e s remembered f o r each age Table  proportion  of  group are presented i n  of  number of d i a r y e n t r i e s ranged from 3 to 32 11.22  (sd  =  4.99).  remembered ranged from 0.40 = 0.13). was  both  9. The  mean  the  for  On  the  expected  basis  that of  of  to 1.00, findings  younger  greater  number  diary  T h i s was  not obtained:  The  proportion  of  items  with a mean of 0.89 obtained  participants  entries  with a  than  i n Study 4,  would  older  (sd  report  it a  participants.  the number of e n t r i e s reported  (both  179  remembered  and f o r g o t t e n  c o r r e l a t e d with age. of e n t r i e s reported  intentions)  was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  A one-way ANOVA u s i n g  the t o t a l number  as the dependent v a r i a b l e and age group  as t h e independent v a r i a b l e was a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t . As  i n the previous  study,  however,  the p r o p o r t i o n  of  items remembered was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d with age, r(131) =  .17, p <  .03, with  older  participants  items than younger i n d i v i d u a l s . group  as the independent  remembering  more  A one-way ANOVA, u s i n g age  variable  and the p r o p o r t i o n  of  d i a r y e n t r i e s remembered as the dependent v a r i a b l e , was a l s o significant, test  F(4, 128) = 2.65, p < .04.  f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e  Since B a r t l e t t ' s  was s i g n i f i c a n t , follow-up  comparisons were conducted used S c h e f f e ' s t e s t . pairwise the  None o f the  comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t , nor were s e v e r a l of  more  meaningful  complex  comparisons.  These  findings  i n d i c a t e t h a t the r e s u l t s o f the ANOVA should be i n t e r p r e t e d with  caution. Memory  deviations  Failures f o r scores  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e. on the MFQ  Means  f o r each  and  standard  age group a r e  p r e s e n t e d i n Table 9. Based  on the f i n d i n g s  obtained  i n Study  4, s c o r e s on  the MFQ were not expected t o vary as a f u n c t i o n of age. results number  The  i n d i c a t e d that age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o the o f memory f a i l u r e s reported  on t h i s  r(132) = -.14, p < .05, suggesting t h a t  older  questionnaire, participants  180  Table 9 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f i n parentheses)  f o r the  memory d i a r y , the MFQ and the b e h a v i o r a l measures f o r each age group  Measure  Age Group Y  Y-m  M  O-m  0  11. 32  10.90  11.94  11. 60  9.78  entries  (5 . 58)  (6 .19)  (4 .96)  (4 . 64)  (3 . 59)  Prop, o f  .85  .93  .89  .86  .95  entries  (.15)  (.09)  (• 12)  (• 16)  (• 10)  No. o f d i a r y  a  remembered MFQ  8 . 60 (4. 82)  Return  2 . 64  materials*  3  Make phone calls  specified  Note: age  2 . 08 f i - 47)  Complete t a s k s as  (• 49)  a  l l . 12 (1. 13)  Y = young  7 .25 (5. 21)  6 . 03 (4. 37)  2 . 85  2 .72  (•49)  (• 61)  2 .50  2 . 50  6 .73  6 . 09  (6. 03)  (5. 94)  2 .90  2 .91  (• 31)  .(- 29)  2 .80  2 .91  (1. 61)  Cl- 46)  (1. 32)  (1- 35)  10 .90  i o .51  10 .67  10 .04  (1. 25)  (1- 42)  (1- 58)  (2. 08)  (18 t o 30 year o l d s ) ; Y-m = young-middle  (31 t o 40 year o l d s ) ; M = middle age (41 t o 55 year  o l d s ) ; O-m = old-middle age (56 t o 65 year o l d s ) ; and 0 = old  (66 y e a r s of age and o l d e r ) .  b  T o t a l p o s s i b l e scores  181 are:  f o r Return m a t e r i a l s , 3; f o r make phone c a l l s ,  f o r Complete t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d ,  12.  4;  and  182  reported  fewer  memory  failures  However, a one-way ANOVA u s i n g  than  younger p a r t i c i p a n t s .  age group as the independent  v a r i a b l e r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . Memory Questionnaire.  The MQ  once a t the beginning o f the f i r s t the  end  of  deviations  the  second  was  administered  session,  session.  twice,  and again  Means  f o r each s c a l e on the MQ f o r each  and  near  standard  administration  are presented i n Table 10. Based expected would  on  that  be  the  results  scores  obtained  i n Study  4,  on the two a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s  similiar.  A  repeated  measures  i t was  o f the MQ MANOVA  was  s i g n i f i c a n t , Wilks Lambda = .91, F(5, 125) = 2.60, p < .03, suggesting time.  t h a t scores  Follow-up  on the MQ  correlated  d i f f e r e d as a f u n c t i o n of  t-tests  i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s reported more  on MQ2  significant.  than  on MQ1.  using  five  o f the other  r e s u l t s were scores  o f the MQ was not s i g n i f i c a n t . two one-way  one f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  age group as the independent v a r i a b l e and  on the f i v e s c a l e s as the dependent measures.  Lambda = .74, F(20, 416) = 1.96, p < .01.  o f the scores  For MQ1, the  r e s u l t s o f 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 ,  revealed  scales  using memory s t r a t e g i e s  f u r t h e r examine the r e s u l t s from the MQ,  MANOVAs were conducted, MQ,  the  A c o r r e l a t e d t - t e s t conducted on t o t a l  f o r the two a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s To  None  on  Wilks  Follow-up ANOVAs  s i g n i f i c a n t age e f f e c t s f o r Change over time, F(4,  129) = 5.12, p < .001.  Follow-up p a i r w i s e  comparisons were  183  Table 10 Means  and  standard  deviations  ( i n parentheses)  f o r each  s c a l e on the MO f o r each age group  Scale  Age Group  3  Y  Y-m  M  O-m  O  24 . 60  26.20  26. 14  26.80  26.83  (5.69)  (4.95)  (5.18)  (4.30)  26. 65  25. 50  26.70  27.04  (5.39)  (4.66)  (4.71)  (5.52)  (3.97)  . 37.20  36.40  37.44  35. 57  38.48  (4.82)  (4.03)  (5.02)  (7.17)  (5.09)  37.72  35.50  36.87  39.04  (5.14)  (4.93)  (4.45)  (6.29)  (5.17).  19.60  20.40  16. 53  16. 20  14.70  (5.14)  (6.10)  (5.61)  (4.99)  (3.23)  b  Prospective memory  1  (5.82) 2  24 . 08  Achievement and m o t i v a t i o n 1  2  37 . 33  Change over time  1  (con't)  184 Table 10  (con't)  Age  Scale  35 .40  36 .45  (6. 08)  (9. 43)  (6. 44)  34 .56  34 .85  34 .50  (6. 42)  (8. 67)  (6. 32)  21 .88  21 .20  (4. 55)  (3. 29)  0 -m  0  31 .97  34 .44  (7. 42)  (6. 32)  own  memory  1  2  Use  Y -m  of  Evaluation one's  Group M  Y  34 . 33  32 . 77 (6. 97)  34 . 39 (6. 03)  of  strategies 1  2  Total  1  2  Note: the  a  first  The  23 .76  (4. 37)  23 . 05  22 . 64  20 .47 (5. 49) 21 .77  23 . 39 (4. 16) 23 . 04  (6. 45)  (3. 33)  (4. 45)  (4. 29)  (3. 27)  138 . 68  140 .55  135 .94  131 . 00  137 .83  (18 . 91)  (19. 29)  (11. 81)  139 .08  140 .20  (20. 28)  (18. 29)  137 . 11 (12. 94)  (19. 48) 133 .97 (18. 56)  (12. 66) 137 . 57 (11. 71)  f i r s t v a l u e r e f e r s to the average score f o r  administration  second r e f e r s t o the administration  21 . 50  of the MQ  ( i . e . MQ1);  average score f o r the  ( i . e . MQ2).  Total possible  the  second scores f o r each  of the s c a l e s are:  P r o s p e c t i v e memory = 3 5; Achievement  and m o t i v a t i o n = 45; Change over time = 35; E v a l u a t i o n o f one's own memory = 60; Use of s t r a t e g i e s = 30; and T o t a l 205.  b  Y = young (18 t o 30 years o f age); Y-m = young-  middle age (31 t o 4 0 years o f age); M = middle age (41 t o 55 years o f age); O-m = o l d middle age (56 t o 65 y e a r s o f age); and O = o l d (66 years of age and o l d e r ) .  186  c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the S p j o t v o l l - S t o l i n e procedure.  Both the  young and the young-middle aged groups scored h i g h e r on  this  (  s c a l e than the o l d group, suggesting t h a t o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s may  be  more  aware  of  memory  changes  e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t memory w i l l individuals.  None of  the  or  may  change with age,  other  have  greater  than younger  p a i r w i s e comparisons  were  significant. A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s was  obtained f o r MQ2.  l i k e l i h o o d r a t i o t e s t from the MANOVA was Lambda  =  .76,  univariate  1(20,  analyses  416) again  =  1.76,  comparisons  indicated middle  t h a t , as  <  .02.  revealed s i g n i f i c a n t  f o r Change over time, F(4, 129) pairwise  p  significant,  using  the  f o r MQ1,  = 4.40,  the  aged groups scored h i g h e r than  Wilks  Follow-up age  p < .002.  young and  effects Follow-up  Spjotvoll-Stoline  both  The  procedure the  young-  the o l d group.  None  of the other p a i r w i s e comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . Two  ANOVAs were conducted,  of the MQ,  using t o t a l  one  f o r each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  score as the dependent v a r i a b l e  age group as the independent  variable.  Neither analysis  and was  significant. B e h a v i o r a l measures Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r scores on each of the b e h a v i o r a l measures are presented i n Table Return no  reason  on t h i s  things.  t o expect  task.  The  Based on previous t h a t age results  9.  findings,  there  d i f f e r e n c e s would be  i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s was  was  observed not  the  187  case:  returning  diary) E  <  materials  ( i . e . t h e consent  form  and t h e  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with age, r(132) = .19,  .01, suggesting  materials one-way  that  older  participants  than younger i n d i v i d u a l s . ANOVA  using  returned  Nevertheless,  age group as t h e independent  more  since a 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 i n t e r p r e t e d  with  caution. Make phone c a l l s . make two phone c a l l s testing expected  As noted, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o t o arrange  appointment  sessions.  Remembering  t o make  t o vary  as a f u n c t i o n  o f age.  times  the c a l l s  p  <  .02, again  performed b e t t e r  suggesting  that  was not  Nevertheless, age  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h making the c a l l s , .18,  f o r the  older  on t h i s task than younger  r(132) =  participants  individuals.  A  one-way ANOVA was not s i g n i f i c a n t , however, suggesting  that  the  with  correlational  results  should  be  interpreted  caution. At were  asked  session. call  t h e end of the f i r s t t o phone Half  t e s t i n g session,  t o arrange  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s  participants  f o r the second were asked  testing  t o make t h e  the next day, and h a l f were asked t o make i t t h r e e days  later.  A one-way ANOVA, using  the two time i n t e r v a l s as t h e  independent v a r i a b l e , was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Keep appointments.  P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o remember  two appointments, one f o r each l a b o r a t o r y participants  (4%) f a i l e d  to either  session.  show  up  Only s i x  or c a l l  to  188  reschedule one of the appointments. was  not considered  further.  Complete tasks to  complete  asked date  four  as  specified.  tasks  in a  t o s t a r t the d i a r y on and  day  each d i a r y e n t r y ,  and  the time  three  first  were  manner.  a s p e c i f i e d day  They  and  to  to  fill  w r i t i n g instrument.  the  i n c l u d e the  They were a l s o asked  and  were  t o put  to  out  the  Finally,  date  switch  (from-pen to p e n c i l or v i c e versa)  forms,  asked  page of t h e i r d i a r y .  were asked  of the e n t r y .  w r i t i n g instruments  specified  they  Participants  specified  of the week on the  For  completing  Therefore, t h i s measure  while  forms u s i n g  participants  a  were  asked t o put s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on an index c a r d . As noted,  h a l f of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked  the d i a r y the same day the f i r s t were  asked  to  start  i t the  s e s s i o n was  next  day.  17  but one p a r t i c i p a n t  participants  entries. in  the  (13%)  A  Thus, t h i s measure was previous  study,  one-way  the  time,  on  this  and  on  not examined  performance  ANOVA  manipulation.  i n c l u d e d the date,  included  start  completed, h a l f  r e v e a l e d 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 All  to  a l l but  the  diary  further.  task  As  may  have  been a t c e i l i n g because of the s t r u c t u r e of the d i a r y forms. Based reason  to  specified  on  f i n d i n g s obtained  expect would  that  vary  determine whether t h i s study,  i n Study  completing  as  a  the  f u n c t i o n of  finding  a summary score based on  was  4,  there  various age.  replicated  In  was  no  tasks  as  order  to  i n the  fifth  the other t h r e e b e h a v i o r a l  189  tasks  ( i . e . starting  the  diary,  switching  writing  instruments, and completing t h e index card) was c a l c u l a t e d . A total  o f 12 p o i n t s c o u l d be awarded.  t h a t age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r(130) = -.25,  related  The data  t o completing  indicated the t a s k s ,  p < .002. However, a one-way ANOVA i n v o l v i n g  the f i v e age groups r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t  effects.  C o r r e l a t i o n s with each o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t a s k s r e v e a l e d that  age was  related  instruments and complete instrument, 1987). 4.48,  r(132)  <  .002.  univariate  analyses  t o switch  writing  t h e t h r e e forms with the s p e c i f i e d  = -.36, p  A one-way ANOVA p  t o remembering  <  .001  was a l s o  Neither  significant,  the  revealed  ( c f . Dobbs  Rule,  F(4,129) =  correlational  significant  &  nor t h e  effects  for  s t a r t i n g the d i a r y and completing the index c a r d . A  stepwise  multiple regression analysis  involving a l l  of t h e b e h a v i o r a l measures ( i . e . r e t u r n i n g m a t e r i a l s , making phone  calls,  instruments switching  starting  the  and completing  writing  significantly  the index  instruments  correlated  diary,  with  switching card)  and r e t u r n i n g age, R =  writing  indicated  that  m a t e r i a l s were  .41, F(2, 129) =  13.13, p < .001. Comparisons between the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures As  was the case  self-report  4, comparisons  and b e h a v i o r a l measures  were assessed presented  i n Study  u s i n g simple  i n Tables  of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  correlations.  11 and 12.  between t h e  The r e s u l t s a r e  A l l results  that  were  190  significant  at p  tables.  Given  computed,  the  or  rate  (and  considered  to  that  other  of  on  than  correlations  the  using  the  p  <  in  these  that  were  be s i g n i f i c a n t  side  at  p  being  too  <  those  .001  were  i n the t e x t .  S i m i l a r procedures i n Tables  level  tends  by  familywise  only  are d i s c u s s e d  ignored.  .001  of  liberal)  significant  followed f o r the r e s u l t s presented that  may  too  and thus  f i n d i n g s were  indicated  i n an e f f o r t t o c o n t r o l  were  reliable,  are  of these  err  rather  correlations  less  number  Therefore,  conservative,  All  .05  however, s e v e r a l  chance alone. error  <  were  14 t o 17. to  be  Note  somewhat  c o n s e r v a t i v e f o r these t a b l e s as w e l l . I t was hypothesized various  behavioral  memory  performance,  observed The  between  results  indicates,  are  measures  and  i n Table  self-report  related.  For the most p a r t , there the  prospective  self-report  memory  r e p o r t e d i n Study 4.  11.  o f . the b e h a v i o r a l  and making phone  calls)  and  performance,  were  prospective would  As  be  objective  table  significantly  measures also  the  (returning  significantly  seems t o be no  thus  and the  o b j e c t i v e measures.  measures were  materials  between  assessing correlations  self-report  presented  and two  were  significant  the  the two  correlated,  t h a t i f the d i a r y , the MFQ,  relation  measures  confirming  of  findings  191 Table 11 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Measure Measure  1  2  3  4  5  6  1- No. of entries 2- Prop. of  -.04  entries remembered 3- MFQ  -.10  4- Return  -.32  .06  -.17*  -.01  .07  -.16*  -.06  .37**  .15  -.06  -.16*  .06  materials 5- Make phone  calls  6- Complete  .11  tasks as specified Note:  * g < .05.  vary from 130 t o 132.  ** p < .001.  The degrees o f freedom  192  In report  order  t o determine  and b e h a v i o r a l  whether  measures  performance  of p r o s p e c t i v e  on  memory  r e l a t e d t o scores on the metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e Pearson  c o r r e l a t i o n s were  calculated  self-  between  was  (the MQ),  the various  p r o s p e c t i v e memory measures and scores on t h e MQ.  Scores on  each  the  of  the  scales  administrations Table  12.  of the MQ.  This  both t h e r e s u l t s by  Dobbs  scores  table  averaged  (1987),  there  memory t a s k s .  correlations  do stand  out.  in  i n accordance  is little  Nevertheless,  with  reported  evidence  c o r r e l a t e with  First,  two  a r e presented  above, and the f i n d i n g s  a metamemory measure  prospective  across  The r e s u l t s  indicates that,  reported  and Rule  on  were  three  that  scores  on  significant  Prospective  memory was  n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with scores on the MFQ, suggesting, as i n Study 4, t h a t g r e a t e r awareness of one's a b i l i t y t o c a r r y out p r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks produces fewer memory f a i l u r e s . Second, E v a l u a t i o n  of one's own memory was a l s o  correlated  with  evaluation  of one's  types  scores  on the MFQ.  memory  negatively  I f i t i s assumed  as good  that  or bad i n p a r t i c u l a r  of s i t u a t i o n s i s influenced,  at least  i n part,  by  one's a c t u a l a b i l i t y t o perform i n such s i t u a t i o n s , and t h a t the  i n d i v i d u a l modifies  failures,  then  this  h i s or her behavior negative  t o a v o i d memory  correlation  may  also  be  i n t e r p r e t e d as g r e a t e r awareness of one's a b i l i t y t o perform in  particular  Third,  s i t u a t i o n s produces  Prospective  memory  was  fewer  also  memory  correlated  failures. with  the  193  Table 12 C o r r e l a t i o n s between s c a l e s on t h e MQ and t h e s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory  Scale E  -.08  .16*  .19*  . 02  .17*  .27*** -.01  . 09  . 15*  . 00  .18*  P  No. o f  .17*  A  S  rpa  C  Measure  diary entries Prop, o f entries remembered MFQ  .38***  . 10  -.13  *** -. 26  .14*  -.20**  Return  .15*  . 00  -.10  -.03  .17*  . 05  . 04  . 04  materials Make phone  .14*  -.02  -.17*  . 12  .15*  -.13  . 07  . 03  calls Complete  -.07  .02  tasks as specified Note:  a  P = P r o s p e c t i v e memory; A = Achievement and  m o t i v a t i o n ; C = Change over time; E = E v a l u a t i o n o f one's own memory; S = Use of memory s t r a t e g i e s ; T = T o t a l score (sum of P, A, C, E, and S ) .  194 * E <.05.  ** E <.01.  *** E <«001.  freedom vary from 131 t o 132.  The degrees of  195  proportion  o f d i a r y e n t r i e s remembered.  may simply  r e f l e c t the f a c t t h a t both measures a r e a s s e s s i n g  memory f o r intended Laboratory  tasks  Means  and  This  latter  result  actions.  standard  deviations  for  each  of  the  l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s are presented i n Table 13. It  was  laboratory with  predicted  tasks  younger  that  would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  participants  individuals.  The r e s u l t s ,  support  hypothesis.  this  analysis, table, Names  involving  and Faces  Events .63,  Logical lists,  better  Memory  A  stepwise  than  multiple  variables  older  and t h e delayed task  regression  included  measures  and the Shopping  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n the  measure f o r the f o r the  and Day's  c o r r e l a t e d with  r e s u l t s of the u n i v a r i a t e analyses  laboratory variable  measures  using  a r e summarized  pairwise  participants  i n Table  comparisons (those  age  group 15.  indicate  18 t o 30 years  than p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the two o l d e s t aged and the old) .  age, R =  majority  Finally,  the  independent  For the most that  the  groups  part,  youngest  old) performed  The young-middle aged  o f the t a s k s .  on each o f the  as  a l s o performed b e t t e r than t h e o l d (those the  various  which a r e presented i n T a b l e 14,  the immediate r e c a l l  task,  the  F(3, 97) = 21.64, p < .001. The  the  on  c o r r e l a t e d with age  performing  the nine  i n d i c a t e d that  Modified  performance  better  (the old-middle (those  31 t o 40)  66 and o l d e r )  the middle-aged  on  group  196  Table 13 Means and standard the  d e v i a t i o n s ( i n parentheses) f o r each o f  laboratory tasks  and the follow-up  interview  f o r each  age group  Measure  MLMi  Age Group  3  Y  Y-m  M  0 -m  O  22 . 34  20 . 97  20 . 34  18 .38  16 . 66  (3. 54) MLMd  20 . 61 (4. 56)  SDL  BCRi  BCRd  NFi  20 . 35  (4. 66)  16 .58  16 .71  14 .90  (6. 52)  (5. 65)  (4. 64)  20 .42  19 . 09  (3. 16)  10 .83  10 .45  10 . 53  (• 94)  (1. 09)  (• 91)  (4. 84)  18 . 69 (4. 63) 9 .89 31)  (4. 59) 12 . 52 (5. 66) 19 .41 (3. 9.1) 9 . 35 (1. 32)  11 . 36  11 . 32  11 .31  11 . 10  10 .48  (• 95)  (• 89)  (1. 0.1)  (• 99)  (1. 56)  14 .92  13 . 25  13 . 12 (5. 53)  NFr  (4. 93)  (2. 77)  (5. 11) NFd  (4. 34)  b  . 97 (• 04)  (5. 72) 11 .45  12 . 68 (3. 54) 10 . 24  10 . 29 (4. 85) 8 .21  (6. 07)  (3. 79)  (4. 57)  .95  .93  .93  (• 07)  (• 07)  (• 08)  9 . 18 (3. 14) 6 . 27 (3. 21) . 89 (• 08) (con't)  197  Table 13 (con't)  Age Group  Measure Y-m  Y  S&DEi  .89  . 84  a  .85  .77  .72  (.12)  (.10)  (.13)  (-17)  .89  .82  .86  .7.4  .74  (.08)  (.10)  (.09)  (.20)  (.13)  23 . 12  21.90  21. 53  21. 03  19. 09  (3.60)  (4.05)  (3.96)  (2.52)  Note:  0  (.08) S&DEd  Interview  O-m  M  (4.30)  T h e measures and the t o t a l p o s s i b l e p o i n t s a r e :  MLMi = M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - immediate, 42; MLMd = Modified  Logical  Memory - delayed,  42; SDL = S e r i a l  Digit  Learning, 24; BCRi = Buschke Cued R e c a l l - immediate, 12; BCRd = Buschke Cued R e c a l l  - delayed,  12; N F i = Names and  Faces - immediate, 30; NFd = Names and Faces NFr  = Names and Faces  Shopping S&DEd  =  and Day's Shopping  - delayed, 30;  - r e c o g n i t i o n , p r o p o r t i o n s ; S&DEi =  Events and  lists Day's  - immediate, Events  lists  proportions; -  delayed,  p r o p o r t i o n s ; and Interview = follow-up i n t e r v i e w , 36.  Y =  young (18 t o 30 years o f age); Y-m = young-middle age (31 t o 40 years o f age); M = middle age (41 t o 55 years o f age); 0-m  = old-middle  age (56 t o 65 years o f age) ; and 0 = o l d  (66 years o f age and o l d e r ) .  Table 14 C o r r e l a t i o n s between age and the l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s  Task  r  M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - immediate  -.43**  M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - delayed  -.44**  S e r i a l D i g i t Learning  -.15*  Buschke Cued R e c a l l - immediate  -.44**  Buschke Cued R e c a l l - delayed  -.27**  Names and Faces - immediate  -.4 5 **  Names and Faces - delayed  -.48  Names and Faces - r e c o g n i t i o n  -.38 **  Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -  -.41  immediate ** Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s Note: delayed  p < .05.  vary from 118 t o 132.  -.3 6  p < .001. The degrees o f freedom  199 Table 15 R e s u l t s o f the one-way ANOVAs i n v o l v i n g acre groups and the laboratory  tasks  Task  df  Modified Logical  4, 116  Pairwise comparisons' 5.48 ***  Memory - immediate Modified Logical  y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o  4, 116  6. 59 ***  y>m; y>o-m  Memory - delayed Serial Digit  Learning  4, 124  Buschke Cued R e c a l l -  4, 128  88 6.85 ***  immediate Buschke Cued R e c a l l -  y-m>o; m>o 4, 128  2 . 67**  delayed Names and Faces -  4, 124  6.39 ***  y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o  4, 125  7.89 ***  delayed Names and Faces -  none significant  immediate Names and Faces  y>o-m; y>o;  y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o; m>o  4, 125  4.94 ***  y>o  recognition (con't)  200 Table 15 (con't) df  Task  Shopping and Day's  4, 120  Pairwise comparisons 6.40 ***  Events l i s t s -  y>o-m; y>o; y-m>o; m>o  immediate Shopping and Day's  4, 115  6.30 ***  y>o-m; y>o  Events l i s t s delayed Note:  y = young  (18 t o 30 y e a r s ) ; y-m = young-middle aged  (31 t o 4 0 y e a r s ) ; m = middle-aged old-middle aged  (41 t o 55 y e a r s ) ; o-m =  (56 t o 65 y e a r s ) ; o = o l d (66 years and  older). *  p > .05  **  p < .05. *** p < .001.  201  (those  41  to  55)  performed  immediate r e c a l l t e s t s the  Shopping and  better  on  the  Taken  together,  better  than  the  old  on  the  f o r the Buschke Cued R e c a l l t a s k  Day's Events  delayed  test  these  p a r t i c i p a n t s performed  lists.  f o r the  results  They  also  Names and  indicate  and  performed  Faces  that  task.  younger  b e t t e r than o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s on the  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures, as hypothesized. Follow-up  interview  Based on r e s u l t s that  performance  obtained  on  the  i n Study 4,  i t was  expected  follow-up . i n t e r v i e w  would  be  s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with age, with younger p a r t i c i p a n t s s c o r i n g higher than o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . deviations The  f o r each  hypothesis  was  age  significant,  pairwise  F(4,  r(132)  group as 129)  using  presented  =  = -.30,  the  3.74,  the  of  more than age  and  the  <  p  <  .01.  Spjotvoll-Stoline  None  of  other  A  variable Follow-up procedure olds)  (individuals  the  13.  .001.  (18 t o 30 year  old participants  older) .  standard  i n Table  independent p  t h a t the young p a r t i c i p a n t s  remembered years  age  comparisons  indicated  are  confirmed,  one-way ANOVA u s i n g was  group  Means and  66  pairwise  comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the l a b o r a t o r y tasks and the i n t e r v i e w I t was the  p r e d i c t e d t h a t i f both the l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s  follow-up  interview  memory, performance  on  were  the  measures  of  i n t e r v i e w should  and  retrospective be  correlated  202  with  performance on the v a r i o u s t a s k s .  are presented  i n Table 16, supported  The r e s u l t s ,  this  which  hypothesis.  C o r r e l a t i o n s between the p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures (and observed i n Study 4 ) ,  As noted i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n the  issue  o f whether  prospective  i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t processes Loftus  (1971)  memory  may  Baddeley  be  influenced noted  Meacham and Leiman  results extent  has r e c e i v e d e q u i v o c a l  indicated that prospective  (1978)  concluded  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  they obtained  by s i m i l a r  they  were  support:  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e  f a c t o r s ; W i l k i n s and  negatively  r e l a t e d ; and  (1982, Study 1) and K v a v i l a s h v i l i  involve  different  i n these  latter  processes. two s t u d i e s  (1987)  Based  on  (and t o some  i n Study 4), i t was expected t h a t performance on the  prospective  memory  behavioral  measures)  tasks  ( i . e . the  would  not  be  self-report  and  correlated  with  performance on the r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k s . question memory  of interest tasks  would  was be  whether  any of the p r o s p e c t i v e  correlated  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks.  The primary  with  Therefore,  any  of  the  simple c o r r e l a t i o n s  were computed f o r the two s e t s of measures.  The r e s u l t s are  presented  i n Table  i n d i c a t e s , the  hypothesis  was g e n e r a l l y supported.  the with  prospective several  17.  memory tasks  As  the  table  Nevertheless,  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  o f the r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  tasks.  both the number of d i a r y e n t r i e s remembered and  some of  correlated Namely, completing  Table 16 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the follow-up i n t e r v i e w and the laboratory tasks  Laboratory t a s k  r  M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - immediate  .32**  M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - delayed  .43**  S e r i a l D i g i t Learning  .28**  Buschke Cued R e c a l l - immediate  .34**  Buschke Cued R e c a l l - delayed  .22*  Names and Faces - immediate  .42**  Names and Faces - delayed  .35**  Names and Faces - r e c o g n i t i o n . Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -  .22* .27**  immediate Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -. delayed  from 118 t o 132.  .22*  204 Table 17 C o r r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i o u s p r o s p e c t i v e and retrospective  tasks  P r o s p e c t i v e memory measures Retrospective measures*  1  2  3  4  5  6  a  3  MLMi  .17*  -.24**  .01  -.04  .08  .23**  MLMd  .17*  -.31***  .02  -.12  . 02  .30***  SDL  . 03  -.05  BCRi  .15*  BCRd  -.12  . 02  . 13  *** . 38  .17*  -. 07 .  . 04  . 03  . 13  . 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  S&DEi  . 06  -.17*  -.02  . 10  . 05  . 09  S&DEd  . 14  -.16*  -.08  .01  . 01  „*** . ~30  Interview  .23  -.18*  . 00  .09  „ ** .20  Note;  a  . 09  T h e p r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks are:  .21**  1 = number o f  d i a r y e n t r i e s ; 2 = p r o p o r t i o n of e n t r i e s remembered; MFQ; 4 = r e t u r n m a t e r i a l s ; 5 = make phone c a l l s ; complete tasks as s p e c i f i e d . tasks a r e :  D  6=  T h e r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  MLMi = M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - immediate; MLMd  = M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory - delayed; SDL - S e r i a l Learning;  3=  Digit  BCRi = Buschke Cued R e c a l l - immediate; BCRd =  205 Buschke Cued R e c a l l - delayed; N F i = Names and Faces immediate;  NFd = Names and Faces - delayed; NFr = Names and  Faces - r e c o g n i t i o n ; S&DEi = Shopping and Day's Events - immediate;  lists  S&DEd = Shopping and Day's Events l i s t s -  delayed. *  p <.05.  **  E <•01.  ***  freedom v a r y from 116 t o 131.  E <«001.  The degrees o f  206  t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d were c o r r e l a t e d with t h e delayed L o g i c a l Memory t a s k .  Completing tasks as s p e c i f i e d was a l s o  c o r r e l a t e d with S e r i a l the  Shopping  suggest pure  D i g i t Learning  and Day's  that  Events  some f a c t o r ,  memory,  may  Modified  be  and delayed  lists.  r e c a l l of  These c o r r e l a t i o n s  such as a t t e n t i o n as opposed t o  important  for carrying  out  these  p a r t i c u l a r tasks. To examine t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e s e t o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory measures memory  (as a whole) and the s e t of r e t r o s p e c t i v e  measures  (as a  a n a l y s i s was conducted. Table  function  canonical  Names and Faces, Events  lists,  Serial  delayed  the MFQ,  Interpretation  of t h i s  on the simple  p a r t i c u l a r tasks  canonical function  The measures t h a t loaded  recall),  correlation  The r e s u l t s , which a r e presented i n  were the M o d i f i e d  delayed  based  a  18, i n d i c a t e d t h a t only the f i r s t  was s i g n i f i c a n t .  and  whole),  h i g h e s t on t h i s  L o g i c a l Memory Digit  recall  (both  Learning,  recognition of  of the Shopping  and Completing function  correlations,  tasks  supported  immediate  and Day's  as s p e c i f i e d . the c o n c l u s i o n  namely t h a t a l l o f these  (both the r e t r o s p e c t i v e and the p r o s p e c t i v e  memory measures) a r e a f f e c t e d by a s i m i l a r  factor,  such as  attention. Discussion The  fifth,  and  final,  study  in  this  series  of  e x p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance in  adults  i n v o l v e d 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 r e s u l t s o f p r o s p e c t i v e and retrospective  measures  Root Measure  13  1  2  3  R:  .65  .56  .37  R:  .43  .31  .14  2  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 d i a r y  8a  5  6  7  .31  .27  .23  .17  .08  .09  .07  .05  .03  .01  4  .04  entries Prop, o f e n t r i e s  .25  remembered MFQ  .44 (con't)  208 Table 18 (con't) Measure  Root  1  Return m a t e r i a l s  .06  Make phone c a l l s  -.08  Complete  -.50  tasks  2  3  4  5  6  7  as s p e c i f i e d Note:  a  O n l y the f i r s t f u n c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t .  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks a r e :  MLMi = M o d i f i e d  b  The  Logical  Memory - immediate; MLMd = M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory delayed; SDL = S e r i a l D i g i t L e a r n i n g ; BCRi = Buschke  Cued  R e c a l l - immediate; BCRd = Buschke Cued R e c a l l - d e l a y e d ; NFi  = Names and Faces - immediate; NFd = Names and Faces -  delayed; NFr = Names and Faces - r e c o g n i t i o n ; 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.  8  209  Study 4.  Thus, both s e l f - r e p o r t and  prospective  memory  were  again  b e h a v i o r a l measures of  used  to  determine  whether  p r o s p e c t i v e memory performance v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of In a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l standard structured  follow-up  age.  l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s and the semi-  interview  were  used  to  assess  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory. P r o s p e c t i v e memory measures In Study 4, and  the p r o p o r t i o n of e n t r i e s remembered were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  correlated  with  differences was  both the number of d i a r y e n t r i e s r e p o r t e d  age,  among the  significantly  remembered,  but  but  follow-up  five  age  groups.  c o r r e l a t e d with not  with  analyses  the  the  number  of  questionnaire with age,  (the  although  obtained. no  memory MFQ)  these  of  age  of e n t r i e s  entries  reported.  f a i l e d to reveal groups.  reported  on  though,  In Study the  significantly  follow-up  results  suggest  vary  as  the that  4,  memory  correlated  analyses  age  any  was  revealed  groups.  Taken  prospective  memory  a f u n c t i o n of  age  when i t i s  the  behavioral  u s i n g s e l f - r e p o r t measures.  Similar measures  not  d i f f e r e n c e s among  performance does not assessed  was  age  i n 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  Once again,  significant  together,  failures  study,  the p r o p o r t i o n  number  d i f f e r e n c e s among the  no  In t h i s  Once again, however, follow-up analyses significant  revealed  of  results  were  prospective  obtained  memory.  Both  with  returning  materials  and making phone c a l l s were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with  age,  210  suggesting younger failed  older  p a r t i c i p a n t s performed  counterparts.  Nonetheless,  t o r e v e a l any meaningful  groups.  Completing  correlated previous  with  tasks  age,  as  t o one  task,  instruments  namely,  follow-up  was  that  contrary  individuals  negatively  performed  t o the b e t t e r on  This finding i s primarily  remembering  a t the a p p r o p r i a t e  their  analyses  specified  suggesting  f i n d i n g s , younger  than  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e age  t h i s t a s k than o l d e r i n d i v i d u a l s . due  better  time.  t o switch  writing  The i m p l i c a t i o n s of  t h i s f i n d i n g w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l below. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t except as  specified,  not  appear  Moscovitch  tasks  performance on p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k s  t o vary  conclusions  f o r completing  as a f u n c t i o n o f age, thus  drawn  by  & Minde,  several  cited  other  supporting  researchers  by Moscovitch,  does  (e.g.  1982; S i n n o t t ,  1986a; West, 1984, 1988). It  was  hypothesized  that,  b e h a v i o r a l measures were both  i f the  self-report  measuring p r o s p e c t i v e memory,  the two s e t s of measures would be c o r r e l a t e d . the  case:  each  other  materials (but  the s e l f - r e p o r t  perhaps  entries  proportion  calls)  nonsignificant)  between completing diary  measures  and two of the b e h a v i o r a l and making phone  and  were  T h i s was not  correlated  measures  with  (returning  were c o r r e l a t e d .  c o r r e l a t i o n s were  Small observed  t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d and both the number of  reported  and  scores  of e n t r i e s remembered  was  on  the  also  MFQ.  The  correlated, to  211  some  extent,  calls. Rule to  with  returning  And, c o n s i s t e n t with  materials  and  making  f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by Dobbs and  (1987) performance on the MQ was t y p i c a l l y  the b e h a v i o r a l  large,  then,  self-report  measures of p r o s p e c t i v e  there  appeared  and b e h a v i o r a l  a l s o been reported  phone  memory.  t o be no r e l a t i o n measures.  not r e l a t e d By and  between the  Similar results  have  i n the everyday memory l i t e r a t u r e (e.g.  Baddeley, Sunderland & H a r r i s , 1982; Bennett-Levy & Powell, 1980;  Broadbent e t a l . , 1982; Herrmann, 1982, 1984; Z e l i n s k i  et a l . , 1980). As finding and  i n the f o u r t h  study,  i t might  be argued  that  this  i s not unexpected, given t h a t both the memory d i a r y  the MFQ  (the two s e l f - r e p o r t  measures) were,  i n fact,  not measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory per se, but r e t r o s p e c t i v e measures  of prospective  therefore, with  that  the s e l f - r e p o r t  I t would measures  be  expected,  would  correlate  the measures o f r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory and not with the  measures  of  obtained  prospective  for this  r e s u l t s obtained that  memory.  not  example,  the same  the  aspects  measures  may  completing  be  tasks  Minimal  (see Table  17) ,  memory  of p r o s p e c t i v e  measures  along  (returning materials  assessing  "memory"  as s p e c i f i e d  support  was  replicating  An a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n i s  prospective  the s e l f - r e p o r t  behavioral calls),  hypothesis  i n Study 4.  a l l of  assessing  memory.  measures  are  memory.  For  with  two  of the  and making  f o r intended  may be a s s e s s i n g  phone  actions;  more of an  212  "attentional", Support of  "vigilance"  f o r t h i s conjecture  the large  between  or  i s provided  correlations  retrospective  presented  memory  a t t e n t i o n a l component  (e.g.  "monitoring" i n Table i n this  measures  Modified  component.  that  17.  Many  table  are  have  a  strong  L o g i c a l Memory, S e r i a l  D i g i t Learning) and completing t a s k s as s p e c i f i e d . Retrospective In  memory measures  accordance with  aging l i t e r a t u r e , would  perform  than o l d e r studies  several  studies  i t was p r e d i c t e d  better  t h a t younger p a r t i c i p a n t s  on the r e t r o s p e c t i v e  participants  examining  i n the memory and  (see K a u s l e r ,  memory  h y p o t h e s i s was confirmed:  and  memory  measures  1985, f o r a review o f  aging).  In g e n e r a l ,  a l l o f the r e t r o s p e c t i v e  measures were c o r r e l a t e d with age, and follow-up  this memory  univariate  a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d that, on immediate r e c a l l t e s t s , both the young and the young-middle age groups to  40  years  participants to  of  age) performed  ( i . e . p a r t i c i p a n t s 18  better  (those 66 and above).  than  the  oldest  The youngest group (18  30 year olds) a l s o performed b e t t e r than p a r t i c i p a n t s i n  the  old-middle  delayed  age group  tests,  the  (56 t o 65 year  youngest  olds) .  participants  On t h e  consistently  performed b e t t e r than p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the two o l d e s t groups; that  i s , the 18  delayed  recall  to 30 years  tasks than  those 66 and o l d e r .  olds  scored  higher  on t h e  both t h e 56 t o 65 year o l d s and  Performance on the follow-up  interview,  which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with the l a b o r a t o r y  tasks  213  as  hypothesized,  significantly follow-up scored  revealed  similar  c o r r e l a t e d with  analyses  higher  scores  effects.  Age  was  on t h e i n t e r v i e w , and  i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e youngest p a r t i c i p a n t s  than  the oldest i n d i v i d u a l s .  These  results  support those r e p o r t e d i n Study 4 . P r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures One of the major reasons determine whether retrospective reported  the v a r i o u s  memory  were  (1982),  i t was  observed  between these  measures  (1987)  expected  that  Study 5 was t o  o f p r o s p e c t i v e and  correlated.  by K v a v i l a s h v i l i  Based  and Meacham  no  s e v e r a l were,  on  and Leiman,  Although  as  measures.  specified  i n fact,  and  relatively  various  Thus, once again,  large.  other measures  retrospective  completing  tasks  o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory.  results  are p r i m a r i l y due t o one task,  writing  instruments  dismiss  the f i n d i n g s as spurious.  findings Dobbs  trivial,  have  & Rule,  findings  been  obtained  1987; Read,  are p a r t i c u l a r l y  In  memory  as s p e c i f i e d  As noted, namely  a t the a p p r o p r i a t e time.  t a s k seems t o be reasonably  many  completing  shows a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s than t h a t o b t a i n e d the  be  i n Table 17 a r e s m a l l and non-  g e n e r a l , l a r g e c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained between tasks  results  c o r r e l a t i o n s would  two s e t s of measures.  of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s presented significant,  f o r conducting  with these  switching  Because  this  one might be tempted t o Nevertheless,  by other personal  interesting,  similar  i n v e s t i g a t o r s (e.g. communication).  The  s i n c e t h e l e n g t h of  214  time  between  instruments)  when  the  instructions  were given and  to execute them, was  (to  switch  writing  when p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e q u i r e d  approximately  5 t o 10 minutes, h a l f  long as the i n t e r v a l used by Dobbs and Rule  as  (1987).  S e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s could account f o r the f i n d i n g t h a t younger  p a r t i c i p a n t s performed  older participants. have  considered  chosen  not  Although  to  the  addressed  better  on  this  task  than  For example, o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s may  the  task  switch data  do  directly,  to  be  writing  important, instruments  not  allow  it  seems  p a r t i c i p a n t s , r e g a r d l e s s of age,  and  this  as  may  have  requested.  explanation  unlikely,  not  to  since  be  most  i n d i c a t e d they d i d the best  they c o u l d on a l l of the t a s k s . A  second  instruments asked  to  individuals  explanation  was  one  perform, being  of the  more  i s that  the  first  results anxious  since  switching  tasks  p a r t i c i p a n t s were  may about  be  Again,  not allow t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n to be addressed. explanation  middle-age  seems u n l i k e l y ,  f o r two  older in  the data  But,  explanation,  the  middle-age  reasons.  Second, and  do  First, than  t h a t i f anxiety were  group(s)  should  performed worse on t h i s task than e i t h e r the younger or older participants.  a  once more,  p a r t i c i p a n t s g e n e r a l l y seemed more anxious  o l d e r p a r t i c i p a n t s , which would suggest the  to  participating  "memory" study than younger i n d i v i d u a l s .  this  due  writing  perhaps more  have the  importantly,  215  the  majority  of  the  participants  s w i t c h i n g w r i t i n g instruments A  third  reflective  explanation  of  component.  an  attentional,  encoded the request  the  rather  older  findings than  have  extent,  been  a  may  be  memorial, not have  t o switch w r i t i n g instruments,  at least  encoded  but o l d e r  that  p a r t i c i p a n t s may  to the same extent as younger p a r t i c i p a n t s . may  think  was part o f the study.  i s that  For example,  d i d not  by  Or, the request  a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s t o the same  p a r t i c i p a n t s may  not have  "monitored"  t h e i r environment t o the same degree as younger p a r t i c i p a n t s and  therefore  instruments  may  not have  by MQ1.  been  "cued" t o switch  T h i s explanation  writing  i s similar to Einstein  and McDaniel's (1990) n o t i o n t h a t a t a r g e t event may f a i l t o cue the intended The t h i r d can  explanation  time.  i s the most promising,  since i t  account both f o r the low c o r r e l a t i o n s between the s e l f -  report for  a c t i o n a t the appropriate  and b e h a v i o r a l  the  large  measures  correlations  of p r o s p e c t i v e between  memory, and  several  p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory measures. account  for  some  of  the  discrepancies  p r o s p e c t i v e memory l i t e r a t u r e . that  some  prospective  attentional  aspects  others  be  may  of  assessing  explored f u r t h e r .  memory  Nevertheless, tasks  remembering memorial  may  the  I t may a l s o  noted  i n the  the hypothesis be  intentions aspects,  of  assessing and  needs  that  t o be  216 GENERAL DISCUSSION A even  review  of the e x i s t i n g  literature  indicated  though the number o f e m p i r i c a l papers  on  that,  prospective  memory i s i n c r e a s i n g r a p i d l y , there has been l i t t l e  attempt  to  into  integrate  the r e s u l t s  meaningful framework. that  the l i t e r a t u r e  o f the v a r i o u s  studies  a  C l o s e r examination, however, r e v e a l e d  could  be d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e  categories,  each r e f l e c t i n g a component i n v o l v e d i n the performance o f a prospective  memory  task.  Nonetheless,  three  fundamental  questions warranted f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n and were t h e focus of  t h e research  questions  were:  presented  processes;  behavioral/objective  correlate;  dissertation.  (a) whether p r o s p e c t i v e  memory i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t and  i n this  and (c) whether  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e  (b) whether  measures  of  self-report  prospective  prospective  f u n c t i o n of age a c r o s s t h e a d u l t l i f e  These  memory  memory v a r i e s as a  span.  D i f f e r e n t types o f t a s k s , d i f f e r e n t types of processes Baddeley and  and W i l k i n s  retrospective  further, aspect  that  memory  prospective  of cognitive  (1984) a s s e r t e d involve memory  functioning  that  similar i s nothing  that  prospective  processes,  and  more than an  has r e c e i v e d  little  a t t e n t i o n i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . Several, f i n d i n g s this  claim.  Studies  from  the present  research  1 and 2 demonstrated t h a t  question  self-report  measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory c o u l d not only be developed, but  that  meaningful  information  could  be  obtained  with  217  respect  t o both  t h e types  people experience, whether that  of prospective  intended  failures  and the kinds o f f a c t o r s t h a t can a f f e c t  an i n t e n t i o n i s performed.  people's  memory  perceptions  actions  Study  of t h e i r  3 demonstrated  ability  ( i . e . prospective  memory  t o c a r r y out tasks)  a r e not  e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e i r knowledge o f t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s in  general,  nor a r e they  memory changes with to  expectations,  equivalent  to their  i n c r e a s i n g age. Studies  4  Furthermore,  and  c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - r e p o r t  awareness o f  5  contrary  demonstrated  that  and b e h a v i o r a l measures o f  p r o s p e c t i v e memory were t y p i c a l l y small and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . Taken together, Baddeley indeed  and W i l k i n s '  an important  provides  f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t , i n c o n t r a s t t o (1984)  claim,  prospective  memory i s  area t h a t warrants f u r t h e r study,  for i t  i n f o r m a t i o n about people's a b i l i t y t o f u n c t i o n on a  daily basis the  these  results  ( c f . S i n n o t t , 1989a; West, 1984). do not d i r e c t l y  address  Nevertheless,  Baddeley  and W i l k i n s '  a s s e r t i o n t h a t prospective, and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory i n v o l v e similar  processes.  I t was expected t h a t , memory  were  significant designed presented  simply  two  i f prospective aspects  of  the  c o r r e l a t i o n s would be obtained  t o t a p these i n Studies  two types  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e process,  between measures  o f memory.  4 and 5, however,  same  The  failed  to  evidence support  this prediction.  By and l a r g e , n e g l i g i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s were  obtained  the prospective  between  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  218  measures (see a l s o 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,  performance  on  affected  age, although  memory  by  measures  Moscovitch  the  not cited  1989a; West, 1984, 1988). prospective different  1).  memory  performance (see a l s o  Further,  measures  &  i n Moscovitch,  Rule,  1982; S i n n o t t ,  retrospective  that  do, i n f a c t ,  involve  the i n f o r m a t i o n  needed  t h i s c l a i m i s not a v a i l a b l e a t the present  Resolving  1987;  I t i s tempting t o conclude  Nevertheless,  was  on the p r o s p e c t i v e  Dobbs  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  processes.  t o support  Study  retrospective  was  & Minde,  1982,  time.  the i s s u e o f whether o r not p r o s p e c t i v e and memory  processes,  rather  than t h a t 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, both  prospective  Kirsner,  1989).  involve  would e n t a i l  and  a comprehensive theory of  retrospective  memory  Not only would t h i s theory  the kinds of processes and  different  retrospective  ( c f . Dunn  need t o s p e c i f y  t h a t are i n v o l v e d i n both p r o s p e c t i v e  memory  t h a t would a f f e c t these  (and the experimental  processes,  variables  see E i n s t e i n & McDaniel,  1990), i t would a l s o need t o s p e c i f y how d i f f e r e n t and  tasks  are r e l a t e d .  memory research w i l l  &  Without such a theory,  processes  prospective  stagnate.  F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g p r o s p e c t i v e memory Although  recognizing  the need  f o r a theory  s p e c i f y i n g e x a c t l y what such a theory The  present  studies,  however,  should  clearly  i s easy,  entail  indicate  i s not.  t h a t the  219  theory  must c o n s i d e r both the types o f a b i l i t i e s  involved i n  remembering t o c a r r y out a planned a c t i v i t y a t some p o i n t i n the  future,  and the r o l e  non-cognitive  factors  play  in  determining whether an i n t e n t i o n i s remembered, and whether once remembered, i t i s c a r r i e d out. A b i l i t i e s i n v o l v e d i n remembering an i n t e n t i o n .  I t was  4 and 5, the m a j o r i t y  o f the  noted e a r l i e r t h a t , i n S t u d i e s correlations memory  between  tasks  were  the  prospective  negligible.  measures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y that  these  memorial, Although likely  measures  be  Nevertheless,  several speculated  on a t t e n t i o n a l , as opposed t o  ( c f . Mateer e t a l . , 1987; West,  remembering to  retrospective  r e l a t e d , and i t was  focused  abilities  and  to carry  influenced  by  out an both  intended  attention  1988).  action i s and  memory,  d i f f e r e n t types of a c t i v i t i e s may emphasize one aspect the other. in  turn,  The type o f i n t e n t i o n one needs t o remember may, determine  which  e f f e c t i v e or a p p r o p r i a t e if  a person  remembers  type  o f memory  i s most  For example,  he or she has an appointment  day, the passage  order  ensure  that  the  of time  is  aware that an a c t i v i t y  in  a sequence of a c t i o n s ,  may  appointment  emphasizing the a t t e n t i o n a l component.  consulted  strategy  i n a given s i t u a t i o n .  particular to  over  be monitored i n is  met,  In c o n t r a s t ,  must be done a t a s p e c i f i c a mental o r w r i t t e n  t o determine what that s p e c i f i c  on a  thus i f one point  note may be  activity  entails.  In t h i s case, the focus may be on the memorial component.  220  Einstein alternative  and  McDaniel  explanation  between p r o s p e c t i v e  (1990)  f o r the small  have  offered  an  o r zero c o r r e l a t i o n s  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  tasks.  They  suggest t h a t people g e n e r a l l y remember what has t o be done, but  t h a t an a c t i o n may not be performed a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  time because t h e t a r g e t event f a i l e d t o prompt t h e i r memory. Einstein tasks  and McDaniel  i s cued  individual  by  claim  that  the e x t e r n a l  i s operating;  memory  f o r event-based  context  memory  within  f o r time-based  dependent on cues generated by the i n d i v i d u a l . not  inconsistent  offered the  above  two  with  the  positions  would  predict  1988).  different  an  tasks i s  T h i s view i s  attention/memory  (see Mateer & Sohlberg,  which  explanation Nonetheless, patterns  of  r e s u l t s f o r some types of t a s k s . The predict  attention/memory that  vigilance with  prospective  o r monitoring  measures  involving not  with  of  selective  explanation, memory  aspect  tasks would  attentional  f o r example, that  emphasize the  be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d  processing  a t t e n t i o n or s w i t c h i n g  (e.g.  tasks  a t t e n t i o n ) , but  measures t h a t emphasize the memorial aspect (e.g.  r o t e r e p e t i t i o n t a s k s ; c f . Mateer & Sohlberg, The  would  i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l cue p e r s p e c t i v e ,  1988). however,  would  p r e d i c t t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e and r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory tasks t h a t relied that As  on the same type  relied  noted  on d i f f e r e n t  earlier,  of cue would be c o r r e l a t e d ; types  remembering  those  o f cues would be u n r e l a t e d . any type  o f i n t e n t i o n may  221  utilize these  both cues  internal may  be  and e x t e r n a l  more  cues,  a t , o r by, a  then  expected  performance  to  retrospective carry  correlate memory  out an  some o f  than  others.  If is  t o execute a p a r t i c u l a r  specified on  time  this  with  type  utilizes of  task  performance  tasks.  activity  although  effective  assumed, however, t h a t remembering intention  cues,  In c o n t r a s t ,  a t some  point  external would  on  be  explicit  remembering t o  in a  sequence  of  a c t i v i t i e s should be c o r r e l a t e d with performance on i m p l i c i t retrospective involve  internal  distinction Tasks  memory  cues  between  focusing  tasks  since,  (see  implicit  presumably,  Graf  &  both  Schacter's,  and e x p l i c i t  on a t t e n t i o n a l processes  memory  should  would 1985,  tasks).  have  little  or no e f f e c t on performance. I t may be the case t h a t both p e r s p e c t i v e s a r e c o r r e c t , depending on the p a r t i c u l a r t a s k s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . is,  i t has been  assumed t h a t  can  be accounted  f o r by the same f a c t o r .  possible values. The  that  role  o f non-cognitive obtained  retrospective  fact  factors  may  T h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g area  correlations  that  different  similar  not a l l p r o s p e c t i v e that  not  the  i n Studies  of  c o r r e l a t e d with each other p r o v i d e s  for similar  f o r future research.  memory t a s k s  a l l measures  values  But, i t i s a l s o  account  factors.  between  memory measures  correlational  That  The p a t t e r n prospective  of and  4 and 5 suggests  are e q u i v a l e n t .  prospective  memory  f u r t h e r support  The are  for this  222  contention. the  I t was assumed t h a t both t h e s e l f - r e p o r t and  behavioral  However,  measures were a s s e s s i n g  self-report  people's  measures  perceptions  and/or  c a r r y out planned a c t i o n s .  may  prospective  really  awareness  be  of t h e i r  memory.  assessing a b i l i t y to  In c o n t r a s t , b e h a v i o r a l measures  may be a s s e s s i n g t h e i r a c t u a l a b i l i t y  t o remember and c a r r y  them out. People's influenced,  performance  to a large  (e.g. M o r r i s ,  1984).  on  self-report  extent,  by what  In S t u d i e s  measures they  may  be  can remember  4 and 5, f o r example, the  s e l f - r e p o r t measures were a c t u a l l y r e t r o s p e c t i v e measures o f prospective  memory,  and t h e r e f o r e  were  influenced  by what  people could remember which, i n t u r n , may have been a f f e c t e d by  the importance of the intended  remembered forgotten  intentions  having  action.  important  (and thus, not reported)  People may have consequences,  but  i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l ones.  Although the s e l f - r e p o r t measures o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory may  have  namely  been  memory,  influenced 1988).  affected the  primarily  behavioral  by n o n - c o g n i t i v e  In the s t u d i e s  by  cognitive  measures  may  f a c t o r s as w e l l  reported  above  factors,  have  been  ( c f . Winograd,  (and i n p r e v i o u s  s t u d i e s ) , i t was presumed t h a t i f p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d not c a r r y out they  a particular  prospective  memory  f a i l e d t o remember t h a t task.  were made: activity  (a) t h a t  as requested;  task,  because  That i s , two assumptions  p a r t i c i p a n t s intended and (b) t h a t  i t was  failure  t o perform the t o perform the  223  activity  a t the a p p r o p r i a t e  time  was  r a t h e r than some other n o n - c o g n i t i v e commitment or m o t i v a t i o n , the  Introduction,  due t o f o r g e t t i n g ,  f a c t o r (such as l a c k o f  or procrastination).  non-cognitive  As noted i n  factors  do  prospective  memory performance, and o b j e c t i v e  data  conducive  to  distinguishing  between  affect a r e not  forgetting  and  ( p o t e n t i a l l y ) confounding v a r i a b l e s . Three aspects o f the present cognitive First, that  factors f a i l  a brief  t o account  inspection  p a r t i c i p a n t s often  want  t o do them.  suggest t h a t non-  f o r a l l of t h e f i n d i n g s .  o f the d i a r y  d i d not c a r r y  because they ran out of time, not  research  entries  out t h e i r  indicates intentions  r a t h e r than because they d i d  In g e n e r a l ,  the a c t i v i t i e s  did  have t o be done on a p a r t i c u l a r day, and t h e r e f o r e , them o f f u n t i l t h e next day had l i t t l e , The  d i a r i e s contain  a plethora  not  putting  i f any, consequence.  o f information  t h a t needs t o  be examined f u r t h e r . Second,  an attempt  t a s k s meaningful. the very form,  was  made  the  the  behavioral  To t h i s end, they were i n c o r p o r a t e d  s t r u c t u r e of the study  making  t o make  phone  into  (e.g. r e t u r n i n g t h e consent  calls).  In  p a r t i c i p a n t s were not l e d t o b e l i e v e  that  other  words,  these t a s k s  p a r t of the s t u d i e s , and i n f o r m a l q u e s t i o n i n g  the were  indicated that  the manipulation was s u c c e s s f u l . T h i r d , a t t h e end o f S t u d i e s asked  about  their  motivation  4 and 5, p a r t i c i p a n t s were levels  and,  in  both  224  investigations,  the  majority  always, d i d t h e i r best. by Meacham and Future  factors  This  done  (cf.  be  the  could  to  on  be  examine  prospective  in a  number of  1987).  memory  ways,  with  a  the  a self-report  could  be  role  number  of  by  of an i n t e n t i o n this of  behavioral  participant-  i n a memory d i a r y or on a memory  measure  made between  (1977) .  performance.  S i m i l a r l y , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n could be  using  or  f o r example,  Performance on  compared  r e l e v a n t t a s k s as reported questionnaire.  directly  importance or pleasantness  Kvavilashvili,  measure  often,  S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s have been r e p o r t e d  need  non-cognitive  manipulating  they  Leiman (1982) and Meacham and Singer  studies  could  indicated  this  (e.g. Lay, measure  1988) .  and  assessed  Comparisons  performance  on  a  number of b e h a v i o r a l measures of p r o s p e c t i v e memory (such as those used i n the s t u d i e s reported above). The  effects  of need  fatigue,  distractions  also  to  be  Reason, 1979;  Reason & Mycielska,  anxiety,  considered 1982).  stress, (see  Study  1;  These f a c t o r s  may  i n f l u e n c e some a c t i v i t i e s more than  others  a kettle  a loved one).  also  versus  affect  having  the  appropriate  instance,  making  entirely  different  appointment influence  on  dinner with  an  a  use  appointment may  result  calendar  non-cognitive  or  factors  of  busy  in  failing  in  a  may  (e.g. t u r n i n g on  external  while  and  day have  They  cues..  with to  For  something note  planner. on  may  that The  prospective  225  memory  performance  substantial  an  important  area,  worthy  of  different  factors  may  research.  I n t e n t i o n s versus In  is  plans  addition  to  s p e c i f y i n g how  a f f e c t performance on p r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k s , a theory prospective intended  memory  actions.  interchangeably are  must  d i s t i n g u i s h between  The  two  i n t h i s work, but  identical.  For  example,  want, need) to c a r r y  out  involve deciding  particular activity my  lunch  hour).  planned  have  one  may  been  intend  activity,  In some cases, when one  used  yet  not  having  i s going  i t may  to  involve  they  ( i . e . wish, have a  a plan carry  (e.g. I w i l l make a bank d e p o s i t  In others,  and  i t i s not c l e a r t h a t  a given  s p e c i f i c p l a n of a c t i o n . simply  terms  of  may  out  a  during  something more  a k i n to H a r r i s and W i l k i n s '  (1982) TWTE model of p r o s p e c t i v e  memory.  That  need to  g o a l s and  subgoals (e.g. I f I have an hour f o r lunch, and i f  the  bank i s not  d u r i n g my it  i s , one  may  people  too  have a  busy, then I w i l l  lunch hour). influence  may  specific  make a bank  increase  to  the  deposit since  the  types  tasks  For  example,  remember.  opposed  of  T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s important, of  prospective people  may  memory  'plan  more  unusual events or a c t i v i t i e s than f o r r o u t i n e ones as  set  brushing likelihood  one's t e e t h ) . that  the  This,  unusual  remembered, perhaps because g r e a t e r e f f o r t has or because the p l a n  has  made the  (a p a r t y  i n turn,  event  unusual event  been  for  will  may be  exerted  distinctive  226  (cf.  Craik  &  Tulving,  1975).  Of  course,  the  c o n s e q u e n t i a l i t y of the t a s k s would have t o be c o n s i d e r e d as well. The  notion  of sequencing  i s very  the p o t e n t i a l t o draw together areas. types  For instance, o f problem  memory  tasks  working  may  Alzheimer memory  with  and  be r e l a t e d  plans  may  divergent i n some  performance on p r o s p e c t i v e solving  T h i s may have important of c l i n i c a l  injury  and has  a r e important  t o problem  some types  head  problems  several r e l a t i v e l y  solving tasks,  ( c f . S i n n o t t , 1989a). for  since  interesting,  patients)  be r e l a t e d  abilities  implications  p o p u l a t i o n s (e.g.  because  to d e f i c i t s  prospective  i n v o l v i n g the  i n i t i a t i o n and/or performance o f s e q u e n t i a l a c t i o n s . C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o other  areas  In a d d i t i o n t o u n e q u i v o c a l l y demonstrating a  theory  of p r o s p e c t i v e  memory,  the present  the need f o r research  has  p r o v i d e d normative data f o r a d u l t s 18 t o 85 years o f age f o r t h r e e standard n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l measures: a v e r b a l v e r s i o n of the Buschke Cued R e c a l l t e s t ; task;  and the Modified  norms  f o r these  existent.  L o g i c a l Memory  measures  Further,  a  the S e r i a l  were  reliable  task.  generally system  Digit  was  Learning  Previously, poor  or  non-  developed  for  s c o r i n g the Babcock and P o r t l a n d paragraphs i n the M o d i f i e d Logical  Memory  test..  A second  s c o r i n g system,  y i e l d data on the a c t u a l nature o f the information is  c u r r e n t l y being  developed.  This  system  that  will  recalled,  i s designed  to  227  examine  whether  the amount  of  specific  detail  recalled  v a r i e s as a f u n c t i o n of age ( c f . West, 1984, 1988). P r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of p r o s p e c t i v e memory r e s e a r c h As  noted  growing  earlier,  rapidly.  Two  interest  i n prospective  factors  are responsible  memory i s for this  increase. First, of  memory  the on  one can o b t a i n failures  people  information experience  importance or perceived  effect  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y  Sunderland that  e t a l . , 19886).  regarding  t h e types  i n everyday  l i f e and  o f these memory  to function One very  independently ( c f .  interesting  remains unanswered, i s why people p e r c e i v e  memory d e c l i n e s as they  become o l d e r ,  failures  question, that  their  y e t most s t u d i e s of  p r o s p e c t i v e memory i n a d u l t s do not r e v e a l age d i f f e r e n c e s . One  possibility  memory  i s that both p r o s p e c t i v e  do d e c l i n e  proficient  at  particularly  with  age, but t h a t  compensating  with  respect  people  f o r these to  and r e t r o s p e c t i v e become  memory  prospective  very  deficits,  memory.  For  example, people may increase both t h e number and the types of  memory  aids  they  use, when  they  perceive  that  their  memory i s not a t good as i t used t o be. Second, p r o s p e c t i v e memory r e s e a r c h health  care  groups,  most  p r o f e s s i o n a l s working notably  brain  injury  particular  i n d i v i d u a l s experiencing  c h r o n i c memory d e f i c i t s . traumatic  with  can be of v a l u e t o clinical  severe  and  For example, many i n d i v i d u a l s with have  difficulty,  even  years  after  228  their  injury,  maintain such  as  both  attention shopping,  (Mateer order  with  &  long  work  enough  making  Sohlberg,  to  remembering  on  to  and  being  perform  a phone c a l l ,  1988;  Sohlberg  improving  these  &  able  everyday  and  cooking  Mateer,  abilities,  must  remember t o perform  w e l l as how  on  tasks a meal  1987).  In  health  care  p r o f e s s i o n a l s need t o have some idea of the types people  to  a day-to-day  of t a s k s basis,  as  those without severe memory problems remember t o  perform these t a s k s . The been  ability  ignored  by  individuals. using and  only  Baddeley 1979; of  intended  clinicians  working  a c t i o n s has with  typically  memory .impaired  Memory f u n c t i o n i n g has g e n e r a l l y been assessed laboratory-based  standard  relevance  t o perform  treatment  for  everyday  & Hiorns,  Wilson,  strategies  techniques  have  life  see  1989).  1981,  (but  Moffat  1982),  that  r e t r o s p e c t i v e memory  can  had  questionable  Wilson,  (1984; see  measures,  Cockburn,  also  Crovitz,  f o r example, d e s c r i b e d a number be  used  improving  in brain  (1978, 1980)  demonstrated, most i n d i v i d u a l s do not use  strategies  under  particular specific  normal  therefore, strategy  learning  Moffat, 1984;  individuals.  But,  memory  functioning  surprising,  injured  for  circumstances. that  often  situation  extensive  fails (e.g  to  as H a r r i s  It  these  is  training  not on  g e n e r a l i z e beyond  Mateer  & Sohlberg,  Schacter, R i c h & Stampp, 1985).  a the  1988;  229  As  a p r e l i m i n a r y step  t o understanding  the types of  memory problems b r a i n - i n j u r e d i n d i v i d u a l s experience, Mateer et  a l . (1987)  described  administered  various  types  of  i n d i v i d u a l s with, and without, indicated  they  needed  hoped  that  assessment  reported  in  investigators  brain  experiences,  injuries.  the this  and treatment  to  Both groups prospective  measures,  a t the present methodologies,  dissertation  i n both  t e c h n i q u e s are  p r o s p e c t i v e memory.  are not a v a i l a b l e  that  forgetting  that  The r e s u l t s o f Mateer e t a l . ' s study  f o r remediating  techniques  questionnaire,  had t h e g r e a t e s t problems with  memory and a t t e n t i o n . demonstrated  a memory  will  experimental  be  Although time, and of  and a p p l i e d  such it  is  findings value  to  settings.  230 REFERENCES Baddeley, A. (1979). The l i m i t a t i o n s o f human memory: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the design of r e t r o s p e c t i v e surveys. In L. Moss & H. G o l d s t e i n (Eds.), The r e c a l l method i n s o c i a l surveys (pp. 13-30). London: U n i v e r s i t y of London I n s t i t u t e o f Education. Baddeley, A., & W i l k i n s , A. (1984). Taking memory out of the l a b o r a t o r y . In J . E. H a r r i s & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s , and absentmindedness (pp. 1-17). London: Academic Press. Baddeley, A., Sunderland, A., & H a r r i s , J . (1982). How w e l l do l a b o r a t o r y based p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s p r e d i c t p a t i e n t s ' performance o u t s i d e t h e l a b o r a t o r y ? In S. Corkin, K. L. Davis, J . H. Growdon, E. Usdin, & R. J . Wurtman (Eds.), Aging. V o l . 19. Alzheimer's Disease: A r e p o r t of progress i n r e s e a r c h (pp. 141148). New York: Raven Press. B a t t i g , W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms f o r v e r b a l items i n 56 c a t e g o r i e s : 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 o f knowledge about the use of cues t o a i d p r o s p e c t i v e r e t r i e v a l . Child Development, 56, 631-642. Beal, C. R. (1988). The development o f p r o s p e c t i v e memory s k i l l s . In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory: Current r e s e a r c h and i s s u e s . V o l . 1. Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 366-370). C h i c h e s t e r , John Wiley & Sons. Bennett-Levy, J . , & Powell, G. E. (1980). The s u b j e c t i v e memory q u e s t i o n n a i r e (SMQ). An ' i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the s e l f - r e p o r t i n g o f " r e a l - l i f e " memory s k i l l s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 19, 177-188. Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, 0. (1983). C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment. A c l i n i c a l manual. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., F i t z G e r a l d , P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The c o g n i t i v e f a i l u r e s  231 q u e s t i o n n a i r e (CFQ) and i t s c o r r e l a t e s . British J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Psychology, 21, 1-16. Bromley, D. B. (1974). Middlesex, England:  The psychology o f human ageing. Penguin Books.  Buschke, H. (1984). Cued r e c a l l i n amnesia. of C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 6, 433-440.  Journal  C e c i , S. J . , Baker, J . G., & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). P r o s p e c t i v e remembering, temporal c a l i b r a t i o n , and context. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory: C u r r e n t research and i s s u e s . V o l . 1. Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 360-365). C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons. C e c i , S. J . , & Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985). "Don't f o r g e t to take the cupcakes out of the oven": P r o s p e c t i v e memory, s t r a t e g i c time monitoring and c o n t e x t . C h i l d Development, 56, 152-164. C h a f f i n , R., & Herrmann, D. J . (1983) S e l f r e p o r t s o f memory performance as a f u n c t i o n 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 f o r nominal s c a l e s . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 20(1), 37-46. Cronbach, L. J . (1951). C o e f f i c i e n t alpha and t h e internal structure of t e s t s . Psychometrika, 16, 297334. C r o v i t z , H. F. (1979) Memory r e t r a i n i n g i n b r a i n damaged p a t i e n t s : The a i r p l a n e l i s t . . Cortex, 15, 131-134. C r o v i t z , H. F., Cordoni, C. N., D a n i e l , W. F., & Perlman, J . (1984). Everyday f o r g e t t i n g e x p e r i e n c e s : Real-time i n v e s t i g a t i o n s with i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e study of memory management i n brain-damaged p a t i e n t s . 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 g e n e r a l s o c i a l surveys, 1972-1985. Chicago: N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n Research Center, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago. Dixon, R. A., & H u l t s c h , D. F. (no d a t e ) . The metamemory i n adulthood (MIA) instrument. Unpublished manuscript.  232 Dixon, R. A., & H u l t s c h , D. F. (1983a). Metamemory and memory f o r t e x t r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n adulthood: A c r o s s v a l i d a t i o n study. J o u r n a l o f Gerontology, 38., 689694. Dixon, R. A., & H u l t s c h , D. F. (1983b). S t r u c t u r e and development o f metamemory i n adulthood. J o u r n a l o f Gerontology, 38, 682-688. Dobbs, A. R., & Rule, B. G. (1987). P r o s p e c t i v e memory and s e l f - r e p o r t s o f memory a b i l i t i e s i n o l d e r a d u l t s . Canadian J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 41(2), 209-222. Drew, G. C. (1940). An experimental study o f mental fatigue. ( B r i t i s h A i r M i n i s t r y F l y i n g Personnel Research Committee Paper No. 277). Re-printed 1979 i n Dearnaley, E. J . & Warr, P. J . (Eds.), A i r c r e w s t r e s s i n wartime operations (pp. 135-177). London: Academic Press. Dunn, J . C., & K i r s n e r , K. (1989). I m p l i c i t memory: Task or process? In S. Lewandowsky, J . C. Dunn, & K. K i r s n e r (Eds.), I m p l i c i t memory. T h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s (pp. 17-31). H i l l s d a l e , N. J . : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. E i n s t e i n , G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and p r o s p e c t i v e memory. J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 16, 717726. E l l i s , J . A. (1988). Memory f o r f u t u r e i n t e n t i o n s : I n v e s t i g a t i n g p u l s e s and steps. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current research and i s s u e s . V o l . 1. Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 371-376). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Erber, J . T. (1989). Young and o l d e r a d u l t s ' a p p r a i s a l of memory f a i l u r e s i n young and o l d e r a d u l t t a r g e t persons. J o u r n a l 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 d i f f e r e n c e s i n a p p r a i s a l and a t t r i b u t i o n . Psychology and Aging, 5, 236-241. Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Depth, e l a b o r a t i o n , and distinctiveness. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. C r a i k (Eds.), L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g i n human memory (pp. 89118). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .  233 Goldberg, L. R. (1977, August). Language and personality: Developing a taxonomy o f t r a i t d e s c r i p t i v e terms. I n v i t e d address t o t h e D i v i s i o n of E v a l u a t i o n and Measurement a t t h e 86th Annual Convention o f t h e American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o . Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). I m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t memory f o r new a s s o c i a t i o n s i n normal and amnesic s u b j e c t s . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 11, 501518. H a r r i s , J . E. (1978). E x t e r n a l memory a i d s . In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l a s p e c t s o f memory (pp. 172-179). London: Academic Press. H a r r i s , J . E. (1980). Memory a i d s people use: Two i n t e r v i e w s t u d i e s . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 8, 31-38. H a r r i s , J . E. (1984). Remembering t o do t h i n g s : A f o r g o t t e n t o p i c . In J . E. H a r r i s & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s and absentmindedness (pp. 71-92). London: Academic Press. H a r r i s , J . E., & W i l k i n s , A. J . (1982). Remembering t o do t h i n g s : A t h e o r e t i 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 o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o assess and study memory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 92., 434-452. Herrmann, D. J . (1984). Questionnaires about memory. In J . E. H a r r i s & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s 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. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory (pp.35-51). London: Academic Press. H u l i c k a , I. M. (1982). Memory f u n c t i o n i n g i n l a t e adulthood. In F.I. M. Craik & S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and c o g n i t i v e processes (pp. 331-351). New York: Plenum. Hultsch, D. F., Dixon, R. A., & Hertzog, C. (1985). Memory p e r c e p t i o n s and memory performance i n  234  adulthood and aging. 4(4), 179-187.  Canadian J o u r n a l on Aging,  Jackson, J . L., Bogers, H., & K e r s t h o l t , J . (1988). Do memory a i d s a i d the e l d e r l y i n t h e i r day t o day remembering? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N . Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l a s p e c t s o f memory; Current r e s e a r c h and i s s u e s . V o l . 2. C l i n i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s (pp. 137-142). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Jacoby, L. L., & C r a i k , F. I . M. (1979). E f f e c t s o f e l a b o r a t i o n o f p r o c e s s i n g a t encoding and r e t r i e v a l : Trace d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s and r e c o v e r y o f i n i t i a l context. In L. S. Cermak & F. I . M. C r a i k (Eds.), L e v e l s o f p r o c e s s i n g i n human memory (pp. 1-21). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Kausler, D. H. (1985). E p i s o d i c memory: Memorizing performance. In N. Charness (Ed.), Aging and human performance (pp.101-141). C h i c h e s t e r , England: Wiley & Sons. Kausler, D. H., & Hakami, M. K. (1983) Memory f o r activities: A d u l t age d i f f e r e n c e s and intentionality. Developmental Psychology, 19, 889894 . Kausler, D. H., L i c h t y , W., & Freund, J . S. (1985) A d u l t age d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c o g n i t i o n memory and frequency judgments f o r planned versus performed activities. Developmental Psychology, 21. 647-654. K i r k , R. E. (1982). Experimental d e s i g n : f o r t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s (2nd ed.). CA.: Brooks/Cole.  Procedures Monterey,  K o r i a t , A., & Ben-Zur, H. (1988). Remembering t h a t I d i d i t : Processes and d e f i c i t s i n output m o n i t o r i n g . In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current r e s e a r c h and i s s u e s . V o l . 1 Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 203-208). C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons. K o r i a t , A., Ben-Zur, H., & S h e f f e r , D. (1988). Telling the same s t o r y twice: Output m o n i t o r i n g and age. J o u r n a l of Memory and Language. 27., 23-39. Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & F l a v e l l , J . H. (1975). An i n t e r v i e w study of c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about memory. Monographs o f the S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d 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 i n t e n t i o n as a d i s t i n c t form of memory. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 78., 507-518. Lay, C. H. (1988). P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and everyday memory. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory: C u r r e n t r e s e a r c h and i s s u e s . V o l . 1. Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 453-458). C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons. Levy, R. L. (1977). R e l a t i o n s h i p o f an o v e r t commitment to t a s k compliance i n b e h a v i o r therapy. J o u r n a l o f Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 8, 2529. Levy, R. L., & C l a r k , H. (1980). The use o f an o v e r t commitment t o enhance compliance: A c a u t i o n a r y note. J o u r n a l o f Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y . 11, 105-107. Levy, R. L., & L o f t u s , G. R. (1984). Compliance and memory. In J . E. H a r r i s & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s and absent-mindedness (pp. 93-112). New York: Academic Press. Levy, R. L., Yamashita, D., & Pow, G. (1979). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of an o v e r t commitment t o t h e frequency and speed o f compliance with symptom r e p o r t i n g . M e d i c a l Care, 17(3), 281-284. Lezak, M. D. (1983) ed.). New York:  N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment. (2nd Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press.  L i d z , T. (1980). Phases of a d u l t 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 i s s u e s (pp. 20-37). New York: Brunner/Mazel. L o f t u s , E. F. (1971). Memory f o r i n t e n t i o n s : The e f f e c t of presence of a cue and i n t e r p o l a t e d activity. Psychonomic Science, 23.(4), 315-316. M a r t i n , M., & Jones, G. V. (1984). C o g n i t i v e f a i l u r e s i n everyday l i f e . In J . E. H a r r i s , & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s and absentmindedness (pp. 173-190). London: Academic P r e s s . Mateer, C., & Sohlberg, M. M. memory r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . In Neuropsychological studies (pp. 202-225). New York:  (1988) A paradigm s h i f t i n H. A. Whitaker (Ed.), of nonfocal b r a i n damage Springer-Verlag.  236 Mateer, C., Sohlberg, M. M., & Crinean, J . (1987). P e r c e p t i o n s o f memory f u n c t i o n i n i n d i v i d u a l s with c l o s e d head i n j u r y . J o u r n a l o f Head Trauma R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , 2, 74-84. Meacham, J . A. (1982). A note on remembering t o execute planned a c t i o n s . Journal o f A p p l i e d Developmental Psychology. 3, 121-133. Meacham, J . A. (1988). I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s and p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E . M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory: Current research and i s s u e s . V o l . 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 p r o s p e c t i v e remembering i n children. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 73., 299301. Meacham, J . A., & Dumitru, J . (1976). Prospective remembering and e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cues. JSAS C a t a l o g o f S e l e c t e d Documents i n Psychology. 6, (65, Ms. No. 1284). Meacham, J . A., & Kushner, S. (1980). Anxiety, p r o s p e c t i v e remembering, and performance o f planned actions. J o u r n a l of General Psychology, 103, 203209. Meacham, J . A., & Leiman, B. (1982). Remembering t o perform f u t u r e a c t i o n s . In U. N e i s s e r (Ed.), Memory observed: Remembering i n n a t u r a l c o n t e x t s (pp.3 27336). San F r a n c i s c o : Freeman & Co. Meacham, J . A., & Singer, J . (1977). Incentive e f f e c t s i n p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 97, 191-197. M i l l e r , G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the s t r u c t u r e of behavior. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. Moffat, N. (1984) S t r a t e g i e s of memory therapy. In B. A. Wilson & N. Moffat (Eds.), C l i n i c a l management o f memory problems (pp. 63-88). R o c k v i l l e , MD.: Aspen. M o r r i s , P. E. (1979). S t r a t e g i e s f o r l e a r n i n g and recall. In M.M. Gruneberg & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), A p p l i e d problems i n l e a r n i n g and memory (pp. 25-57) . New York: Academic Press.  237 M o r r i s , P. E. (1984). The v a l i d i t y o f s u b j e c t i v e r e p o r t s on memory. In J . E. H a r r i s & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s and absentmindedness (pp. 153-172). London: Academic Press. Moscovitch, M. (1982). A n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l approach to p e r c e p t i o n and memory i n normal and p a t h o l o g i c a l aging. In F. I . M. C r a i k & S. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and c o g n i t i v e processes (pp. 55-78). New York: Plenum Press. Munsat, S. (1966). Random House.  The concept  o f memory.  N e i s s e r , U. (1982). Memory observed: natural contexts. San F r a n c i s c o :  New York:  Remembering i n Freeman & Co.  Orne, M. T. (1970). Hypnosis, m o t i v a t i o n and t h e e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment. In W. J . Arnold & M. M. Page, Nebraska symposium on motivation. V o l . 18. Current theory and r e s e a r c h i n m o t i v a t i o n (pp. 187-265). L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press. Perlmutter, M. (1978). What i s memory aging the aging of? Developmental Psychology. 14, 330-345. Reason, J . T. (1979). A c t i o n s not as planned: The p r i c e of a u t o m a t i z a t i o n . In G. Underwood & R. Stevens (Eds.), Aspects of consciousness. V o l . 1: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Issues (pp. 67-89). New York: Academic Press. Reason, J . T. (1984) Absent-mindedness and c o g n i t i v e control. In J . E. H a r r i s & P.E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s and absent-mindedness. London: Academic Press. Reason, J . T., & Mycielska, K. (1982). Absent-minded? The psychology o f mental lapses and everyday memory. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l . R i t t e r , K. (1978). The development o f knowledge of an e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cue s t r a t e g y . C h i l d Development. 49, 1227-1230. Rogers, D. (1982) The a d u l t years. An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o aging (2nd ed.). Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e Hall. Schacter, D. L., Rich, S., & Stampp, A. (1985) Remediation o f memory d i s o r d e r s : Experimental  238 e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s p a c e d - r e t r i e v a l technique. J o u r n a l o f 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: S c o t t , Foresman & Co. Searleman, A. & Gaydusek, K . A. (1989, November). R e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o s p e c t i v e memory a b i l i t y and s e l e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s . Paper presented a t the 30th Annual meeting o f t h e Psychonomic S o c i e t y , A t l a n t a , Georgia. S i n n o t t , J . (1986b). Everyday memory: with egual p r a c t i c e does age i n f l u e n c e f o r g e t t i n g i n a two year period? Paper presented a t t h e meeting of the G e r o n t o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y , Chicago. S i n n o t t , J . (1989b) General systems theory: A r a t i o n a l e f o r the study o f everyday memory. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday c o g n i t i o n i n adulthood and l a t e l i f e (pp. 59-70). New Rochelle, N. Y.: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. S i n n o t t , J . (1986a). P r o s p e c t i v e / i n t e n t i o n a l and i n c i d e n t a l everyday memory: E f f e c t s of age and passage of time. Psychology and Aging, 1(2), 110116. S i n n o t t , J . (1989a). P r o s p e c t i v e / i n t e n t i o n a l memory and aging: Memory as adaptive a c t i o n . In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everday c o g n i t i o n i n adulthood and l a t e l i f e (pp. 352-369). New R o c h e l l e , N.Y.: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Sohlberg, M. M., & Mateer, C. A. (1987) E f f e c t i v e n e s s of an a t t e n t i o n t r a i n i n g program. Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Neuropsychology, 9, 117130. Sunderland, A., H a r r i s , J . E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984). A s s e s s i n g everyday memory a f t e r severe head i n j u r y . In J . E. H a r r i s & P. E. M o r r i s (Eds.), Everyday memory, a c t i o n s and absent-mindedness (pp. 191-206). London: Academic Press. Sunderland, A., H a r r i s , J . E., & Gleave, J . (1984). Memory f a i l u r e s i n everyday l i f e f o l l o w i n g severe head i n j u r y . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 6 (2), 127-142.  Sunderland, A., Watts, K., Baddeley, A. D., & H a r r i s , J . E. (1986) S u b j e c t i v e memory assessment and t e s t performance i n e l d e r l y a d u l t s . J o u r n a l o f Gerontology, 41, 376-384. Weiford, A. T. (1958). Aging and human s k i l l . Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press.  London:  West, R. L. (1984, August). An a n a l y s i s o f p r o s p e c t i v e everyday memory. Paper presented a t t h e meeting o f the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Toronto. West, R. L. (1986). Everyday memory and aging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 2(4), 323-344. West, R. L. (1988) P r o s p e c t i v e memory and aging. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current r e s e a r c h and issues. V o l . 2. C l i n i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s (pp. 119-125). C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons. W i l k i n s , A. J . , & Baddeley, A. D. (1978). Remembering to r e c a l l i n everyday l i f e : An approach t o absentmindedness. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N.Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects o f memory (pp. 2733). London: Academic Press. Wilson, B. A. (1981). Teaching a p a t i e n t t o remember people's names a f t e r removal o f a l e f t temporal tumor. B e h a v i o r a l Psychotherapy. 9, 338-344. Wilson, B. A. (1982). Success and f a i l u r e i n memory t r 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 v a l i d a t i o n o f a t e s t b a t t e r y f o r d e t e c t i n g and monitoring everyday memory problems. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Neuropsychology. 11. 855-870. Winograd, E. (1988). Some o b s e r v a t i o n s on p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. M o r r i s , & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l aspects of memory: Current r e s e a r c h and i s s u e s . V o l . 1. Memory i n everyday l i f e (pp. 348-353) . C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons. Z e l i n s k i , E. M., G i l e w s k i , M. J . , & Thompson, L. W. (1980). Do l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s r e l a t e t o s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t of memory a b i l i t y i n the young and old? In L. W. Poon, J . L. Fozard, L. S. Cermak, D. Arenberg, & L.  240 W. Thompson (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s i n memory and aging: Proceedings of the George A. T a l l a n d Memorial Conference (pp. 519-544). H i l l s i d e , New J e r s e y : Erlbaum.  241 APPENDIX A Memory Diary (Study 1) I-.  What was the event you f o r g o t ? When d i d you remember about i t ( r e l a t i v e should have done i t ?  t o when you  Approximately when d u r i n g the day d i d you remember about i t ? . _ Had you made any attempt ( e i t h e r with an e x t e r n a l a i d such as a note o r an appointment book, or with an i n t e r n a l a i d such as r e h e a r s i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n o r "making a note of i t " ) t o remember t o do the event? I f so, what? . On a 4 p o i n t s c a l e , please r a t e how important event was f o r you. 1 2 not a t a l l important  slightly important  3 moderately important  this 4 very important  On a 4 p o i n t s c a l e , please r a t e how important g e n e r a l events o f t h i s k i n d a r e f o r you. 1 not a t a l l important  2. slightly important  3 moderately important  4 very important  On a 7 p o i n t s c a l e , please r a t e how p l e a s a n t t h i s was f o r you. 1 very unplea.  2 mod. unplea.  3 slight. unplea.  4 neut.  5 slight, plea.  6 mod. plea  event 7 very plea.  On a 7 p o i n t s c a l e , please r a t e how p l e a s a n t g e n e r a l events of t h i s k i n d a r e f o r you. 1 very unplea.  2 mod. unplea.  3 slight, unplea.  4 neut.  5 slight, plea.  6 mod. plea  7 very plea.  242 9.  How would you c a t e g o r i z e t h i s event? a) something you do on a r e g u l a r b a s i s b) something you s a i d you would do o r planned t o do c) something you planned t o take w i t h you d) something you intended t o t e l l someone e) other (please s p e c i f y )  10.  I s t h e r e some reason you may have f o r g o t t e n t h i s I f yes, p l e a s e s p e c i f y .  11.  Any o t h e r comments?  event?  243 APPENDIX B Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Study 2) For each of the f o l l o w i n g questions, p l e a s e i n d i c a t e (by c i r c l i n g either "yes" or "no") whether you have f o r g o t t e n t o do the item l i s t e d . I f you have f o r g o t t e n t o do the item, please i n d i c a t e how o f t e n you have f o r g o t t e n i t , and how important the item was f o r you. 1.  Within the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n t o do something you do on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , such as:  a) brush or comb your h a i r ? frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  Yes  (number o f t i m e s ) :  importance:  1-2  3-5  1 2 not a t a l l slightly important important  b) brush your teeth? frequency  Yes  1 not a t a l l important  No 6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  1-2  2 slightly important  (number o f t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  d) take medication? frequency  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  1 not a t a l l important  3-5  6-8  >10 4 very important  earrings, 8-10  3 moderately important  >10  4 very important  No  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1-2  2 slightly important  Yes  4 very important  No  c) put on or take o f f jewelry (e.g. watch, r i n g , necklace)? Yes No frequency  >10  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  244 e)other (please s p e c i f y ) frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  2.  1-2  1 2 not a t a l l slightly important important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10  4 very important  Within the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n t o do something you s a i d you would do o r planned t o do such as:  a) take something out of the oven o r o f f the stove? frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not at a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  Yes  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  b) t u r n something on (e.g. a k e t t l e , pot, the oven)? frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  1-2  slightly important  3-5  6-8  Yes  8-10  3 moderately important  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  1-2  slightly important  3-5  4 . very important  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  Yes  8-10  3 moderately important  d) a doctor or d e n t i s t appointment? frequency  6-8  Yes 3-5  6-8  No  >10  c) a b r e a k f a s t , lunch, dinner or c o f f e e engagement? frequency  No  No  >10 4 very important  No 8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  e) an appointment with another p r o f e s s i o n a l ( i f yes, p l e a s e specify)? Yes No frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  245  f) an appointment with a n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l ? frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  1-2  slightly important  g) r e t u r n books t o the l i b r a r y ? frequency  (number o f t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  3-5  Yes 1-2  2 slightly important  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  i) r e t u r n v i d e o s t o a v i d e o s t o r e ? frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  3-5  1-2  slightly important  3-5  3-5  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 . slightly important  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  1-2  slightly important  3-5  4 very important  8-10  >10 4 very important  individual? 6-8  8-10  >10 4 very important  No 6-8  8-10  >10 4 very important  Yes 6-8  No 8-10  3 moderately important  k)go somewhere (e.g. a s t o r e , gas s t a t i o n , frequency  6-8  3 moderately important  3-5  >10  No  3 moderately important Yes  No  8-10  3 moderately important  j)buy a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t or substance? frequency  6-8  3 moderately important  h) r e t u r n notes or other o b j e c t s t o another Yes No frequency  Yes  >10 4 very important  library)? 6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  246 l)make a phone c a l l ? frequency  1 not a t a l l important  m)make an appointment? frequency  1 not a t a l l important  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  1-2  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10  4 very important  1-2  3-5  6^8  8-10  3 moderately important  1-2  3-5  6-8  >10 4 very important  Yes 8-10  3 moderately important  No >10  4 very important  .  (number o f t i m e s ) : 1 not a t a l l important  4 very important  No  1 2 not a t a l l slightly important important  (please s p e c i f y )  >10  No  2 slightly important  (number o f t i m e s ) :  importance:  3.  3-5  (e.g. r e n t , phone, hydro, v i s a ) ?  importance:  frequency  Yes  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  p)other  Yes  1 2 not a t a l l slightly important important  n)reply to a l e t t e r ?  o)pay a b i l l  1-2  2 slightly important  (number o f t i m e s ) :  importance:  frequency  No  (number o f t i m e s ) :  importance:  frequency  Yes  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  Within the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n t o take something w i t h you o r l e f t something behind such as:  a)an umbrella?  Yes  No  frequency (number o f t i m e s ) : 1-2 3-5 6-8 8-10 >10 importance: 1 2 3 4 not a t a l l slightly moderately very important important important important  247 b) r a i n gear  (other than an umbrella)?  frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  c) l i b r a r y books? frequency  slightly important  Yes  1 not a t a l l important  3-5  No  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important.  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  e) keys? frequency  Yes  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  >10 4 very important  Yes  No  8-10  >10  3 moderately important  4 very important  No  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  4 very important  8-10  3 moderately important  d) books, pen, p e n c i l or e r a s e r f o r c l a s s ? frequency  >10  No  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1-2  Yes  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  f) d i r e c t i o n s , map or address f o r an u n f a m i l i a r p l a c e ? Yes No frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  g) other (please s p e c i f y ) frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 not a t a l l important  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  248 4.  Within the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n something you planned t o t e l l someone such as:  a) a phone message? frequency  Yes  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  b) a v e r b a l message? frequency  No  slightly important  Yes  1 not a t a l l important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  No  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1-2  1-2  3-5  2 slightly important  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  c ) i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a n o n s o c i a l t o p i c or s i t u a t i o n (e.g. c l a s s a c t i v i t y , newspaper a r t i c l e , weather r e p o r t , funny s t o r y , joke)? Yes No frequency  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  1-2  slightly important  3-5  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1 2 not a t a l l important  e) other (please s p e c i f y ) frequency  1 not a t a l l important  >10 4 very important  (e.g. c o n c e r t , p a r t y ,  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 s l i g h t l y . moderately important important  >10 4 very important  •'  (number of t i m e s ) :  importance:  1-2  8-10  3 moderately important  d) i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a s o c i a l event movie)? Yes No frequency  6-8  1-2  2 slightly important  3-5  6-8  8-10  3 moderately important  >10 4 very important  249 5.  Is t h e r e anything e l s e you f o r g o t about d u r i n g the past week which i s not l i s t e d above and which would not f a l l i n t o any of the c a t e g o r i e s given above? I f yes, p l e a s e l i s t the t h i n g s you f o r g o t below:  6a).  Do you normally keep an appointment d i a r y , w r i t e notes to y o u r s e l f o r use some other form o f e x t e r n a l memory a i d (such as a s k i n g o t h e r s t o remind you t o do something)? Yes No  6b).  I f yes, which method(s) do you use? appointment d i a r y w r i t t e n notes . asking others t o remind you other methods (please s p e c i f y )  7a).  Do you normally t r y t o use some form of i n t e r n a l memory a i d (such as r e h e a r s i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n , or making "a mental note o f i t " ) ? Yes No  7b) .  I f yes, which method (s)  8a).  Did you f o r g e t anything w i t h i n the l a s t week which you had t r i e d t o remember u s i n g some form o f memory a i d (either i n t e r n a l or external)? Yes No  8b).  I f yes, which type o f memory a i d had you used?  9. 10.  do you use?  '  Please p r o v i d e your age: Please i n d i c a t e your sex:  Male  Female  250 APPENDIX C Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Study 3) The items. the  Memory I t was  Questionnaire shortened  following  to a  procedures  unpublished manuscript,  as UBC  122  was  statements  white  index  Knowledge,  &  Hultsch,  1983b;  students  (mean age = 25.6)  taking  served as p a r t i c i p a n t s . on  a 10.2  Strategies,  of  cm  X 15.2  Each of the cm  (4" X  six categories  Achievement  and  index  Change,  cards.  The  Strategies,  categories  were  definitions  and  adapted  unpublished manuscript,  of  Achievement from  Dixon  Motivation,  the  similar  Knowledge,  and  and  6")  (labeled  P r o s p e c t i v e Memory and U n c l a s s i f i a b l e ) were typed on sized  122  questionnaire using  Dixon  Definitions  Change,  contained  no d a t e ) .  typed  card.  50-item  (cf.  F i f t e e n undergraduate summer courses  originally  Motivation  Hultsch  (1983b;  no d a t e ) .  The students were asked t o s o r t the items one at a time into  one  and  only one  of these  six categories.  They were  asked t o use the " U n c l a s s i f i a b l e " category only i f they  felt  the item d i d not f i t i n t o any of the other c a t e g o r i e s .  They  were  also  justifying  told their  difficulties  they choices  they had  could and  they  were  written asked  to  i n c l a s s i f y i n g the statements.  emphasized t h a t each statement regard t o how  provide  was  t o be  classified  comments note  any  I t was without  w e l l the i n d i v i d u a l f e l t the statement a p p l i e d  251  to  him or her.  T h i s procedure took approximately  1 hour t o  complete and the students were p a i d $4.00 f o r 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 t h a t had been c l a s s i f i e d most c o n s i s t e n t l y i n a l l of the c a t e g o r i e s except " U n c l a s s i f i a b l e " were then used t o construct  the  final  Questionnaire). Prospective (Several  questionnaire,  Unfortunately,  Memory  category  p a r t i c i p a n t s noted  Knowledge and P r o s p e c t i v e obtain  10 items  (called  using  this  d i d not they  the  procedure, the  contain  10  had d i f f i c u l t y  Memory c a t e g o r i e s ) .  f o r the P r o s p e c t i v e  Memory  Memory  items.  with  the  In order t o category,  the  most c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d p r o s p e c t i v e memory items i n each o f the  other  four  subsequently  eliminated  categories. Prospective  categories  Most  were  used.  as p o t e n t i a l  These items  of the a d d i t i o n a l  Memory category  items  were chosen  from  items  were  f o r the  other  used  f o r the  the Knowledge  category.. This, First,  procedure  was  followed  50 items was considered  items  f o r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  equal  number  categories.  of  items  Third,  for  several  t o be a reasonable Second,  should  be  and perhaps  number o f  i t was f e l t  used  most  reasons.  t h a t an  f o r each  of the  importantly,  i t was  felt  t h a t asking p a r t i c i p a n t s t o r a t e how w e l l a p a r t i c u l a r  item  fell  asking  i n t o a s p e c i f i c category  them how w e l l  that  was q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  particular  (as was done i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  item  from  applied  t o them  phase d e s c r i b e d  above).  252  Items i n the Knowledge, Change, S t r a t e g i e s , and Achievement and  Motivation  categories  category by a t l e a s t agreement).  were  classified  in  the  same  11 o f the 15 p a r t i c i p a n t s (73% t o 100%  Items i n the P r o s p e c t i v e Memory category  were  c l a s s i f i e d by between 5 and 8 of the 15 p a r t i c i p a n t s (33% t o 53% agreement). The presented  final  version  of  below  i n a form  the  Memory  similar  to that  p a r t i c i p a n t s , with two exceptions. i n parentheses to assess,  beside  each  to item  designed  followed by a s l a s h (/) and an i n d i c a t i o n of the d i d assess,  analysis.  follows:  First,  is  administered  i s the memory dimension the item was  dimension the item factor  Questionnaire  P  =  The  five  Prospective  based on the outcome of the scales  Memory,  are A  =  abbreviated Achievement  as and  motivation, C = Change over time, S = Use o f s t r a t e g i e s , and K = Knowledge o f one's own memory Evaluation  of one's own  was conducted;  see Study  memory, 3) .  (which was changed t o E = after  the f a c t o r  Questions  t h a t were d e l e t e d  from f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s a r e denoted by D; those  t h a t d i d not  load on any o f the f a c t o r s but t h a t were necessary to  obtain  a clean  solution  explanation o f these Second, (*). is  are denoted  analysis  by N  i n order  (for  further  l a t t e r two d e s i g n a t i o n s , see Study 3 ) .  the s c o r i n g d i r e c t i o n  i s i n d i c a t e d by an a s t e r i s k  An a s t e r i s k next t o a response i n d i c a t e s t h a t response  scored  example,  5,  the next  response  i f the a s t e r i s k i s next  i s scored  4,  etc.  t o the a response,  For a is  253  scored 5, b i s scored 4, c i s scored 3, d i s s c o r e d 2, and i s scored  1.  indicates  that  This  Similarly, e  i s scored  i n f o r m a t i o n d i d not  administered no d a t e ) .  an a s t e r i s k next  ( c f . Dixon  5,  d  & Hultsch,  t o the e response  i s scored  appear when the  e  4,  so  on.  questionnaire  was  unpublished  and  manuscript,  254 MEMORY QUESTIONNAIRE People use t h e i r memory i n d i f f e r e n t ways i n t h e i r everyday l i v e s . For example, some people w r i t e notes to themselves, o t h e r s do not. T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s concerned with how you use your memory and how you f e e l about i t . Some of the q u e s t i o n s ask your o p i n i o n about memory. For example, My memory w i l l get b e t t e r as I get o l d e r . a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly Other q u e s t i o n s ask how o f t e n you do c e r t a i n which may be r e l a t e d to your memory. For example,  things  I o f t e n w r i t e myself reminder notes. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree strongly There are no r i g h t or wrong answers t o these q u e s t i o n s . Please take your time and answer each of the questions to the best of your a b i l i t y . Each q u e s t i o n i s followed by f i v e c h o i c e s . Draw a c i r c l e around the l e t t e r of the c h o i c e which best a p p l i e s to you. C i r c l e only one l e t t e r f o r each statement. You can choose any one of the answers. I f you agree s t r o n g l y with the statement you would c i r c l e a. I f you d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y with the statement you would c i r c l e e. Choices b and d represent l e s s agreement or disagreement. Choice c g i v e s you a middle c h o i c e , but don't use c u n l e s s you r e a l l y can't decide on any of the other c h o i c e s . Remember: a) Answer every question, even i f i t doesn't apply t o you very w e l l .  seem t o  b) Answer with the choice t h a t best a p p l i e s t o  you.  Please do not mark something because i t seems l i k e the " r i g h t t h i n g t o say".  255 (K/E)  1.  I am good a t remembering the p l o t s o f s t o r i e s and novels. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (A/A)  2.  I t i s important t o work a t s u s t a i n i n g my memory ability. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (P/E)  3.  When I go out t o run a few errands (and don't have them w r i t t e n down on a l i s t ) , I o f t e n f o r g e t to do a t l e a s t one o f them. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/C)  4.  My memory f o r important events has improved the l a s t 10 years. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (A/N)  5.  I am not very motivated t o remember new t h i n g s I learn. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/C)  6.  My memory w i l l get b e t t e r as I g e t o l d e r . *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  over  256 (P/D)  7.  I o f t e n f o r g e t what I have s t a r t e d t o do. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (A/A)  8.  I t g i v e s me something I *a. b. c. d. e.  (P/P)  9.  I o f t e n f o r g e t t o put the garbage out. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  great s a t i s f a c t i o n t o remember thought I had f o r g o t t e n . agree s t r o n g l y agree undecided disagree disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/C) 10.  I t h i n k I w i l l f o r g e t t h i n g s more e a s i l y as I get older. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (S/E) 11.  I o f t e n w r i t e appointments on c a l e n d a r s me remember them. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (A/A)  I t i s important t h a t I am accurate remembering the names of people. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  12.  when  t o help  257 (S/S) 13.  I c o n s c i o u s l y attempt t o r e c o n s t r u c t the day's events i n order t o remember something. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (P/P) 14.  I o f t e n f o r g e t t o pass on messages. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (K/E) 15.  I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering t r i v i a . a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/D)  I am much worse at remembering t i t l e s of books, movies or p l a y s than I was 10 years ago. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  16.  (K/E) 17.  I often forget f a c t s . a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (P/P) 18.  I r a r e l y f o r g e t t o keep an appointment. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (S/S) 19.  I t r y t o r e l a t e something I want t o remember t o something e l s e hoping t h a t t h i s w i l l i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d of my remembering l a t e r . *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  258  (P/P) 20.  I o f t e n f o r g e t t o make important phone a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  calls.  (P/P) 21.  I o f t e n f o r g e t t o keep appointments i f I don't w r i t e them down. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (P/P) 22.  I r a r e l y f o r g e t b i r t h d a y s o r a n n i v e r s a r i e s when I have intended to do something s p e c i a l . *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided . d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (S/N) 23.  I use notes or d i a r y e n t r i e s t o remind me o f t h i n g s I have done o r e x p e r i e n c e d some time ago. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (K/E) 24.  I r a r e l y have d i f f i c u l t y remembering *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/C) 25.  My memory w i l l get worse as I g e t o l d e r . a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  things.  259 (A/A) 26.  Having a good memory would be n i c e , b u t . i t i s not important. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. d i s a g r e e *e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (P/P) 27.  I r a r e l y forget to reply to l e t t e r s . *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. d i s a g r e e e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (K/E) 28.  I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering t h i n g s recipes. . a. , agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. d i s a g r e e *e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (A/A) 29.  I t i s important t h a t I am a c c u r a t e when remembering important dates. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. d i s a g r e e e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (K/E) 30.  I f i n d i t more d i f f i c u l t t o remember d e t a i l s than generalities. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. d i s a g r e e *e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (A/A)  I t i s important t o me t o have a good memory. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. d i s a g r e e e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  31.  like  260 (S/S) 32.  I o f t e n use t o remember *a. b. c. d. e.  mental images or p i c t u r e s i n t r y i n g something. agree s t r o n g l y agree undecided disagree disagree strongly  (P/E) 33.  I r a r e l y f o r g e t t o p i c k up something I had intended t o buy, even when I don't take a shopping l i s t . *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (K/E) 34.  I o f t e n f o r g e t who was with me a t events I have attended. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (K/E) 35.  I am not always sure where I have heard v a r i o u s rumors. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (A/A) 36.  A good memory i s something of which t o be proud. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (A/A) 37.  I work hard *a. b. c. d. e.  a t t r y i n g to improve my memory. agree s t r o n g l y agree undecided disagree disagree strongly  261 (S/S) 38.  I o f t e n t r y t o remember something by remembering some i n f o r m a t i o n about i t (e.g. I t r y t o 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 s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (S/N)  I o f t e n do something unusual (such as wearing my watch on the opposite arm) t o remind myself t o do something. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  39.  (C/C) 40.  The o l d e r I clearly. a. b. c. d. *e.  get the harder i t i s t o remember agree s t r o n g l y agree undecided disagree disagree strongly  (C/C) 41.  My memory has g r e a t l y improved i n t h e l a s t 10 years. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (S/D) 42.  I o f t e n w r i t e myself reminder notes. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (C/D)  I now f o r g e t many more appointments than I d i d 10 years ago. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree strongly  43.  262 (S/S) 44.  I o f t e n t h i n k about the day's a c t i v i t i e s a t the beginning of the day so I can remember what I am supposed t o do. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (A/A) 45.  I admire people who have good memories. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (S/S) 46.  When I t r y t o remember people I have met, a s s o c i a t e names and f a c e s . *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided. d. disagree e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/C) 47.  As people get o l d e r , they tend t o f o r g e t where they put t h i n g s more f r e q u e n t l y . a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  (K/N)  48.  I have d i f f i c u l t y remembering t h i n g s happened a few minutes ago. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  (C/D)  49.  My memory has g r e a t l y d e c l i n e d i n the l a s t years. a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree *e. disagree s t r o n g l y  I  that  10  263  (K/E) 50.  I am good a t remembering names. *a. agree s t r o n g l y b. agree c. undecided d. disagree e. d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y  264 APPENDIX D Memory Diary (Studies 4 and 5) Date: Day of the week: T h i s d i a r y i s meant t o be a r e c o r d o f the unique events you have t o do every day. For the purposes o f t h i s study, a unique event i s : a) something you don't do everyday b) something which you have planned t o do i n advance ( r a t h e r than on the spur-of-the-moment) c) something which has important consequences f o r you. At the end o f each day, p l e a s e f i l l out one form f o r each unique event you had t o do d u r i n g the day. I f you remembered t o do t h i s event, p l e a s e answer Questions 1 t o 6. I f you f o r g o t t o do t h i s event, p l e a s e answer a l l the questions (that i s , Questions 1 t o 12). I f you d i d not have a unique event t o do on any p a r t i c u l a r day, p l e a s e answer only Question 1. Please r e c o r d the day o f the week and the date that you s t a r t e d the d i a r y a t the top o f t h i s page. As w e l l , p l e a s e r e c o r d the date and time o f each entry a t the top of each page. Thank you f o r your time!  Time:  Date: 1.  What was the unique event you had t o do today?  2.  How o f t e n do you do t h i s d u r i n g the course of a week?  3.  How important was t h i s event f o r you (note: imp.=important; unimp.=unimportant)? very imp.  4.  mod. imp.  slight. imp.  neut  slight unimp.  mod. unimp.  very unimp.  How p l e a s a n t do you f i n d t h i s event (note: p l s . = p l e a s a n t ; unpls.=unpleasant)? very pis.  mod. slight. pis. pis.  neut.  s l i g h t . mod. unpls. unpls.  very unpls.  5.  Did you remember t h i s event i n time t o do i t ? I f yes, d i d you do i t ?  6.  How would you c a t e g o r i z e t h i s event? a) something you do on a r e g u l a r b a s i s b) something you s a i d you would do or planned t o do c) something you planned t o take with you d) something you intended t o t e l l someone e) other (please s p e c i f y )  Please answer Questions 7 t o 12 o n l y i f you f o r g o t t o do t h i s event. 7.  When d i d you remember about the event r e l a t i v e t o when you should have done i t ?  8.  Approximately what time d u r i n g the day d i d you remember about i t ?  9.  Did you make any attempt t o remember t o do t h i s I f yes, what d i d you do?  event?  10.  Is t h e r e some reason you may have f o r g o t t e n t h i s I f yes, please s p e c i f y .  11.  Did you remember about the event on your own or d i d something or someone remind you about i t ? Please i n d i c a t e what ( i f anything) reminded you.  12.  Any a d d i t i o n a l  comments?  event?  APPENDIX E Memory Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Studies 4 and 5) MEMORY FAILURES QUESTIONNAIRE The a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s concerned with memory f o r t h i n g s you may have planned t o do, but which you may have f o r g o t t e n t o do. Note t h a t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s concerned w i t h t h i n g s you may have f o r g o t t e n t o do w i t h i n the p a s t week. Please f i l l the q u e s t i o n n a i r e out i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e . Questions 1 t o 4 a r e concerned with d i f f e r e n t types o f items you may have f o r g o t t e n t o do w i t h i n the past week. Each of these questions c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l example items. For each item, p l e a s e i n d i c a t e (by c i r c l i n g e i t h e r "yes" o r "no") whether you have f o r g o t t e n t o do i t . I f the item does not apply t o you with r e s p e c t t o the l a s t week, p l e a s e c i r c l e "NA" (not a p p l i c a b l e ) . I f you have f o r g o t t e n t o do the item, p l e a s e i n d i c a t e (by drawing a c i r c l e around the a p p r o p r i a t e response) how o f t e n you have f o r g o t t e n i t , how important the item was f o r you, and how p l e a s a n t you g e n e r a l l y f i n d t h i s type of event. The FREQUENCY s c a l e ranges from 1-2 times per week t o more than 10 times p e r week. The IMPORTANCE s c a l e ranges from Not At A l l Important to Very Important. The PLEASANTNESS s c a l e ranges from Very Pleasant t o Very Unpleasant. For example, i f you had f o r g o t t e n t o take your medication 3 times t h i s week, i f you thought t h a t t a k i n g your medication was very important, and i f you found t a k i n g i t s l i g h t l y unpleasant, you might respond t o t h i s item as follows: (Within  the  last  week,  did  you  medication? FREQUENCY:  IMPORTANCE:  *Yes a. *b. c. d. e. a. b. c. *d.  No NA 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  forget  to)  take  267  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. *e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  You c o u l d o f course, choose any one o f the answers f o r any o f the t h r e e s c a l e s . You do not need t o make a response to any o f the s c a l e s i f you d i d not f o r g e t t h e item, o r i f the item does not apply t o you. Question 5 asks you t o w r i t e down other t h i n g s which you may have f o r g o t t e n t o do w i t h i n the l a s t week and which would not f a l l i n t o any o f the c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d i n Questions 1 t o 4. Question 6 asks you i f you f o r g o t anything you had t r i e d t o remember. Please answer each o f these questions i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e . Thank you f o r your time.  268 W i t h i n t h e l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n t o do something you do on a t l e a s t a d a i l y b a s i s , such as: a)brush o r comb your h a i r ? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  b ) c l e a n your teeth? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  269 c)put on o r take o f f j e w e l r y (e.g. watch, r i n g , earrings, necklace)? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  d)take medication? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  270 e ) l o c k the door? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  g-  f)turn o f f lights, Yes  No  the stove or some other o b j e c t ? NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  271 g)other  (please s p e c i f y )  Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  Within the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n t o do something you s a i d you would do or planned t o do such as: a)take something out o f the oven or o f f t h e stove? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  b ) t u r n something on (e.g. a k e t t l e , pot, the oven Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  c)a  b r e a k f a s t , lunch, d i n n e r or c o f f e e engagement Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  d)a  d o c t o r or d e n t i s t appointment? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  e)an appointment with another p r o f e s s i o n a l (e.g. a lawyer, c h i r o p r a c t o r , accountant; i f yes, p l e a s e specify)? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  f ) a n appointment with a n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l (e.g. a f r i e n d or f a m i l y member)? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  g ) r e t u r n , g i v e or lend o b j e c t s t o another Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  individual?  h)return videos to a video store? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  i)buy a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t or substance? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  276 j)go  somewhere (e.g. a s t o r e , gas s t a t i o n , Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  k)make a phone c a l l ? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. . very p l e a s a n t b. moderately p l e a s a n t c. s l i g h t l y p l e a s a n t d. neutral e. s l i g h t l y unpleasant f. moderately unpleasant g. very unpleasant  library)?  l)make an appointment? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  m)write o r r e p l y t o a l e t t e r ? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  n)mail a l e t t e r , b i l l Yes FREQUENCY:  IMPORTANCE:  PLEASANTNESS:  No a. b. c. d. e. a. . b. c. d. a. b. c. de. f. g.  or p a r c e l ? 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 p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  o)pay a b i l l (e.g. rent, phone, hydro, v i s a ) Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1^2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not at a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  f.  g-  p)water your p l a n t s ? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  q)take out the garbage? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g-  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  280 r)other  (please s p e c i f y )  Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  W i t h i n the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n t o take something with you or l e f t something behind such as: a)an umbrella or other r a i n Yes  No  gear?  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  b)your w a l l e t o r purse? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  c)keys? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  282 d ) d i r e c t i o n s , map or address f o r an u n f a m i l i a r p l a c e ? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  e)other  (please s p e c i f y )  Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  283 W i t h i n the l a s t week, have you f o r g o t t e n something you planned t o t e l l someone such as: a)a  phone message? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  b)a  v e r b a l message? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  284 c ) i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a n o n - s o c i a l t o p i c or s i t u a t i o n (e.g. a newspaper a r t i c l e , weather r e p o r t , funny story, joke)? Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  d ) i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a s o c i a l event p a r t y , movie)? Yes  No  (e.g. concert,  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  285 e)other  (please s p e c i f y )  Yes  No  NA  FREQUENCY:  a. b. c. d. e.  1-2 times 3-5 times 6-8 times 8-10 times more than 10 times  IMPORTANCE:  a. b. c. d.  not a t a l l important s l i g h t l y important moderately important very important  PLEASANTNESS:  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  very p l e a s a n t moderately p l e a s a n t s l i g h t l y pleasant neutral s l i g h t l y unpleasant moderately unpleasant very unpleasant  Is t h e r e anything e l s e you f o r g o t about d u r i n g the past week which i s not l i s t e d above and which would not f a l l i n t o any o f the c a t e g o r i e s g i v e n above? I f yes, please l i s t t h e t h i n g s you f o r g o t below:  6a). Did you f o r g e t anything w i t h i n the l a s t week which you had made some attempt t o remember ( f o r example, by w r i t i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n down or by r e p e a t i n g i t t o yourself)? Yes  No  6b). I f yes, how had you t r i e d t o remember the information?  7.  A d d i t i o n a l comments?  286 APPENDIX F Interview (Studies 4 and 5) INTERVIEW 1.  What i s my name? (1 p o i n t f o r f i r s t name, 1 p o i n t f o r l a s t name)  2.  What i s my s u p e r v i s o r ' s name? (1 p o i n t f o r l a s t name)  3.  Why am I doing t h i s research? (1 p o i n t f o r a r e f e r e n c e t o my t h e s i s , t o everyday memory, o r t o memory i n general)  4.  I asked you t o do a number of t a s k s over the course of t h i s study. Could you name as many o f those tasks as you can remember? • (1 p o i n t f o r each  5.  6.  task)  What phone number d i d you have t o c a l l ? (1 p o i n t f o r f i r s t three numbers, 1 p o i n t f o r l a s t numbers) Where d i d you send the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n address on your envelopes?  four  /what was the  (1 p o i n t f o r UBC, 1 point f o r Department o f Psychology; 2075 Wesbrook M a l l was a l s o accepted as a c o r r e c t response) 7.  What day o f the week d i d you s t a r t your d i a r y (diaries)? (2 p o i n t s i f c o r r e c t according t o notes and the d i a r y , 1 p o i n t i f w i t h i n one day)  8.  When d i d you have t o r e t u r n your d i a r y  (diaries)?  (1 p o i n t e i t h e r f o r the c o r r e c t day o r f o r a general time-frame c o n s i s t e n t with the i n s t r u c t i o n s , e.g. one week a f t e r I s t a r t e d i t ) 9.  Name t h r e e unique events you had t o do l a s t week and which you i n c l u d e d i n your d i a r y . (1 p o i n t f o r each one i n c l u d e d i n the d i a r y )  287 10.  Did you remember t o do each of the unique events you j u s t named? (1 p o i n t f o r each one c o r r e c t a c c o r d i n g t o the d i a r y )  11.  Name two t h i n g s which you f o r g o t t o do l a s t week and which you i n c l u d e d on the Memory F a i l u r e s Questionnaire. (2 p o i n t s i f d i d n ' t f o r g e t anything, 2 p o i n t s i f only f o r g o t one item, and mentions the c o r r e c t item, otherwise 1 p o i n t f o r each c o r r e c t item)  (end of s e c t i o n t h a t was  used i n S t u d i e s 4 and  5)  12.  I asked you t o do a number of t h i n g s such as make phone c a l l s or m a i l t h i n g s a t s p e c i f i e d times. How d i d you remember t o do these t h i n g s ?  13.  How o f t e n d i d you do your best to complete the t a s k s I asked you t o do (e.g. l a b tasks, making phone c a l l s , m a i l i n g t h i n g s , w r i t i n g i n the d i a r y ) : Always  14.  Often  Sometimes  Seldom  On average, what i s your weekly a l c o h o l  Never  consumption?  a) not at a l l b) 0-5 d r i n k s per week c) 6-10 d r i n k s per week djmore than 10 d r i n k s per week 15.  On average, how o f t e n do you use i l l i c i t marijuana) d u r i n g a week?  drugs (e.g.  a) not a t a l l b) 0-5 times per week c) 6-10 times per week . d)more than 10 times per week 16.  How Very Good  17.  How Very Good  would you r a t e your o v e r a l l memory a b i l i t y ? Good  Average  Poor  Very Poor  would you r a t e your o v e r a l l h e a l t h ? Good  Average  Poor  Very Poor  288 18.  How would you r a t e your o v e r a l l memory a b i l i t y now compared t o what i t was 5 years ago? Much Worse  19.  Slightly Worse  About the Same  Slightly Worse  About the Same  How would you r a t e your o v e r a l l other people your age? Much Worse  23.  About the Same  Slightly Better  Much Better  h e a l t h now compared t o Slightly Better  Much Better  h e a l t h compared t o Slightly Better  Much Better  How would you r a t e your o v e r a l l memory compared t o other people your age? Much Worse  22.  Slightly Worse  How would you r a t e your o v e r a l l other people your age? Much Worse  21.  About the Same  How would you r a t e your o v e r a l l what i t was 5 years ago? Much Worse  20.  Slightly Worse  Slightly Worse  About the Same  Slightly Better  Much Better  e y e s i g h t compared t o Slightly Better  Much Better  How would you r a t e your o v e r a l l h e a r i n g compared t o other people your age? Much Worse  Slightly Worse  About the Same  Slightly Better  Much Better  289 APPENDIX G S c o r i n g f o r M o d i f i e d L o g i c a l Memory Test (Study 5) The  Babcock  and  Portland  paragraphs,  (1983, p. 438) were used as s t i m u l i Memory  task.  They  comprehension below.  are  The s l a s h  in  i n the M o d i f i e d  reproduced  of the s c o r i n g  given  here  to  Logical  facilitate  procedure d e s c r i b e d  (/) marks i n d i c a t e  Lezak  in detail  idea u n i t s as g i v e n 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/ i n a small town/ t e n m i l e s /  from Albany./  Water covered the  streets/  and entered the houses./ Fourteen persons/ were drowned/ and 600  persons/ caught c o l d / because  weather./  In  b r i d g e , / a man/  saving/  a  boy/  of the dampness/ and who  was  caught/  cold  under  a  after  a  cut h i s hands./  The P o r t l a n d paragraph Two/semi-trailer tornado/  blew/  Springfield./  a  trucks/  dozen  l a y on  trucks/  One person/ was  their  o f f the  killed/  sides/  highway/  and 418  i n West  o t h e r s / were  i n j u r e d / i n the Wednesday storm/ which h i t an a i r p o r t / and a nearby  residential  area./  The  governor/  will  ask/  the  P r e s i d e n t / t o d e c l a r e / the town/ a major d i s a s t e r area./ Scoring As  noted  participants' transcribed.  in recall  the  Method attempts  section were  of  taped  Study and  5, then  The t r a n s c r i p t s were scored, with p o i n t s being  290  awarded f o r remembering the g i s t of the each idea u n i t . Note that  because  credit i s  the  paragraphs were  presented  auditorally,  g i v e n f o r a reasonable a c o u s t i c c o n f u s i o n .  291 Babcock paragraph Idea U n i t  Credit  December 6  December 6, December, S t . N i c h o l a s Day, wintertime, before Christmas  Last week  l a s t week, a week ago, a few days ago, w i t h i n the l a s t week  A river  a r i v e r , a stream  overflowed  overflowed, flooded, flood  In a s m a l l town  i n a small town, i n a town, small town, village **No c r e d i t f o r c i t y  Ten m i l e s  ten miles, near, o u t s i d e of, c l o s e t o , a few miles (kilometres)  From Albany  from Albany ( A l b e r n i ) , Albany ( A l b e r n i )  Water covered the s t r e e t s  water covered the s t r e e t s (roads), the s t r e e t s (roads) were covered, water f l o o d e d the s t r e e t s (roads), water flowed over the s t r e e t s (roads), the s t r e e t s (roads) were flooded, t h e s t r e e t s (roads) were under water  And entered the houses  (and) entered the houses (homes), f l o o d e d the houses (homes), went i n t o the houses (homes)  14 persons  14 persons (people), 40 persons (people), some people, people, a number of people, a small number of people,  292 s e v e r a l people, many people, any number of people between 10 and 18 ( r e s i d e n t s or i n d i v i d u a l s could be used i n s t e a d of persons or people) Were drowned  were drowned, drowned, d i e d , were k i l l e d , were v i c t i m s , passed away  And 600 persons  600 persons (people), 1600 persons (people), people, some people, a l a r g e number of people, many people, s e v e r a l hundred, any s p e c i f i e d number between 4 00 and 800 ( r e s i d e n t s or i n d i v i d u a l s could be used i n s t e a d of persons, people)  Caught  caught c o l d , got c o l d s , got s i c k , were s i c k (cold, i l l , c h i l l e d ) , became s i c k ( i l l , chilled)  cold  Because of the dampness  because of (due to) the dampness (damp, wetness, weather, the wet), i t was damp (wet)  And c o l d  c o l d weather (temperature), i t was c o l d , because of (due to) the c o l d  In  weather.  saving  A boy  Who  was  (in) saving (helping, r e s c u i n g ) , t r y i n g t o save a boy ( c h i l d , small child, l i t t l e child, kid, small k i d , l i t t l e k i d , l a d , t o t , male, male child)  caught  who was caught (trapped, s t u c k ) , caught (trapped, stuck)  under a b r i d g e , a b r i d g e , on a b r i d g e a man (woman), someone, some person, a person, a d u l t , male, i n d i v i d u a l , townsperson, r e s i d e n t **No c r e d i t f o r lady, g i r l , female cut h i s hands ( f i n g e r s , arms), hurt h i s hands ( f i n g e r s , arms), i n j u r e d h i s hands ( f i n g e r s , arms), hurt h i m s e l f , cut himself, was i n j u r e d , was hurt, damaged h i s hands ( f i n g e r s , arms)  294 Portland  paragraph  Idea Unit  Credit  Two  two, a couple  Semi-trailer  trucks  semi-trailer trucks, trucks, semi-trailers, large trucks, t r a i l e r t r u c k s , semis, semitrucks, t r a c t o r trucks, t r a c t o r t r a i l e r trucks  Lay on t h e i r s i d e s  l a y on t h e i r s i d e s , were on t h e i r s i d e s , l a y , on t h e i r s i d e s , were overturned, t i p p e d , t i p p e d over (onto t h e i r s i d e s ) , f e l l over (onto t h e i r s i d e s ) , were over, over  A f t e r a tornado  a f t e r a tornado (hurricane, cyclone, storm), a tornado (hurricane, cyclone, storm, severe storm), due t o a tornado (hurricane, cyclone, storm, severe storm) (whirlwind i n place of other terms)  Blew  blew, blown, h i t , swept through  A dozen t r u c k s  a dozen t r u c k s ( t r a i l e r s , s e m i - t r a i l e r s , other t r u c k names), twelve trucks ( s e m i - t r a i l e r s , other truck names), s e v e r a l more, s e v e r a l t r u c k s (other t r u c k names), q u i t e a few  Off the highway  o f f the highway (road), from the highway (road), the highway (road),  295 In West S p r i n g f i e l d  i n West S p r i n g f i e l d , western S p r i n g f i e l d , i n the western p a r t o f (Springfield), S p r i n g f i e l d , Spring **No c r e d i t f o r west something, Spring something, S p r i n g h i l l , Springwood  One person  one person, someone, a person, an i n d i v i d u a l , a resident  Was  killed  was k i l l e d , away  And  418 o t h e r s  418 people (others, persons), 480 people (others, persons), a l a r g e number, s e v e r a l , s e v e r a l hundred, over 400, 408 people (others, persons), any number i n 4 00s, any hundreds number ending i n 18  Were  injured  d i e d , passed  were i n j u r e d (hurt, wounded), s u f f e r e d  In the Wednesday storm  i n the Wednesday storm, i t happened Wednesday, i n the middle of the week  Which h i t an a i r p o r t  which h i t an a i r p o r t , i t h i t an a i r p o r t , an a i r p o r t was a f f e c t e d ,  And  a nearby r e s i d e n t i a l area  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, c l o s e by) community, homes were a f f e c t e d , h i t homes nearby, h i t a nearby r e s i d e n t i a l area  The  governor  the governor (of the state)  296  W i l l ask  w i l l ask (request), (has) asked (requested), i s going t o ask (request)  The P r e s i d e n t  the  to  to d e c l a r e ( c a l l ) , . declared (called, said), w i l l declare ( c a l l ) , has d e c l a r e d ( c a l l e d , said)  declare  President  The town  the town, i t , the area, the surrounding area, the community, the village  A major d i s a s t e r area  a major d i s a s t e r area, a (large) d i s a s t e r area, a d i s a s t e r s i t e (zone), an emergency area ( s i t e )  

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