Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 4030–4036 Saturday Noon
cluded the specific cue (e.g., “Was there something you were supposed
to do at 10:00?”). We found that participants using the implementation
intentions strategy performed no differently than controls.
Of the correct actions participants gave during prompting, 31% were
in response to the nonspecific prompt. Participants gave the correct
action on 86% of trials when they had remembered to act, but on only
32% of trials when they were prompted, evidence supporting the nonindependence
of the prospective and retrospective components.
(4030)
Evidence for Spontaneous Retrieval Processes in Prospective
Memory. GILLES O. EINSTEIN, Furman University, MARK A.
MCDANIEL, Washington University, & MATT LARSON, MATT
MCDERMOTT, & LEAH RUSINKO, Furman University—According
to the multiprocess theory (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000), prospective
memory retrieval can be accomplished by controlled monitoring for
target events or by reflexive processes that spontaneously respond to
the presence of target events. The purpose of this research was to test
for the existence of spontaneous retrieval processes. In the first experiment,
we discouraged monitoring by heavily emphasizing the
speed of performing the ongoing task. Despite no significant costs of
performing a prospective memory task on the ongoing task being
found, prospective memory performance was high. In the second experiment,
participants were given the prospective memory task of
pressing a key whenever either of two target events occurred. They
were then told to suspend this intention during an intervening task.
Slowed responding to target items appearing in the intervening task
suggested spontaneous retrieval. Taken together, these experiments
provide evidence for the existence of spontaneous retrieval processes
in prospective remembering.
(4031)
Monitoring in Event-Based Prospective Memory: Retrieval Mode
Instantiation Plus Target Event Checks. MELISSA J. GUYNN, New
Mexico State University—Prospective memory can be mediated by
monitoring for the targets that indicate when it is appropriate to execute
the intended action. A dual-process theory proposes that monitoring
entails instantiating a retrieval mode plus checking for the targets.
Two experiments provide evidence for these processes. Monitoring
was indexed by impairment on nontarget trials of a reaction time task.
Greater impairment on experimental trials (i.e., there was a goal to execute
an intention) when a target could appear in five locations than
when a target could appear in one location provided evidence for target
checking. Greater impairment on control trials (i.e., there was not
a goal to execute an intention) when participants had been instructed
about the prospective memory task than when participants had not
been so instructed, and the fact that performance on control trials was
not affected by the one-location versus five-location instruction, provided
evidence for instantiating a retrieval mode.
(4032)
Implementation Intentions and Prospective Memory. REBEKAH E.
SMITH, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, & MELISSA D.
MCCONNELL & JENNIFER C. LITTLE, University of North Carolina,
Greensboro—Prospective memory involves remembering to perform
an action in the future, such as remembering to stop at the store on the
way home from work. Chasteen, Park, and Schwarz (2001) found that
prospective memory performance could be improved with implementation
intention instructions (Gollwitzer, 1999). The present study
uses a multinomial model (Smith & Bayen, 2004) to investigate how
implementation intention instructions affect the underlying cognitive
processes that determine successful prospective memory performance.
(4033)
Prospective Memory, Instructions, and Personality. JIE GAO, CAR-
RIE CUTTLER, & PETER GRAF, University of British Columbia
(sponsored by Jonathan W. Schooler)—The main goal of the present
study was to explore whether informing participants that prospective
110
memory (ProM) tasks have been assigned as an assessment of their
memory influences subsequent ProM performance. Subjects were
randomly assigned to two conditions; one was an informed condition,
in which subjects were told that the ProM tasks had been assigned to
assess their memory, and the other was a naive condition, in which
subjects were not informed that the ProM tasks had been assigned to
assess their memory. Subjects in the Informed condition performed
better on one ProM task. Follow-up analyses explored whether the
personality types that best predicted ProM performance varied across
the instructional conditions. The results showed that neuroticism and
conscientiousness predicted ProM performance in the naive condition,
whereas neuroticism, extraversion, and self-oriented perfectionism
predicted ProM performance in the informed condition.
(4034)
Obsessive-Compulsive Checking and Prospective Memory. CARRIE
CUTTLER & PETER GRAF, University of British Columbia (sponsored
by Peter Graf)—We explored whether individuals high in obsessivecompulsive
checking (high checkers) have objective and/or subjective
impairments in their prospective memory (ProM)—their ability to remember
to do things at a later time. Forty-two high checkers and 42
low checkers completed the Prospective Memory Questionnaire and
the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire—each of
which assesses the perceived frequency of a variety of ProM failures.
They were also assigned one event-cued ProM task, which required
requesting the return of a personal belonging (e.g., a watch) at the end
of the session, and one time-cued ProM task, which required reminding
the experimenter to make a phone call in exactly 30 min. High
checkers reported significantly more ProM failures on the questionnaires
and performed significantly worse on the event-cued, but not
time-cued, ProM task. We suggest that checking is a compensatory
strategy for dealing with impairments in ProM task performance.
• MEMORY PROCESSES •
(4035)
The Role of Basic-Level Convergence in Accounting for the Misinformation
Effect. AINAT PANSKY & SARAH K. BAR, University
of Haifa—Recent findings have shown that information reported from
memory tends to converge at an intermediate level of abstractness—
the basic level—particularly over time (Pansky & Koriat, 2004). In the
present study, these findings were applied to the rich body of research
investigating the misinformation effect. Assuming gradual basic-level
convergence, a misinformation effect was expected when the misleading
information was delayed and consistent with the basic level of the
original information, but not when it was inconsistent. The findings
from three experiments confirmed the hypotheses. Memory for the
original information was impaired when the misleading information
belonged to the same basic-level category, but not when it belonged
to a different basic-level category, although similarity to the original
information was equated for the two types of misleading information.
The findings support the view of the misinformation effect as a byproduct
of spontaneous memory processes that occur over time.
(4036)
Source Monitoring and Interrogative Suggestibility. SERENA
MASTROBERARDINO & FRANCESCO S. MARUCCI, University of
Rome La Sapienza, & DAVID C. RICCIO & MARIA S. ZARAGOZA,
Kent State University—The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 (GSS2;
Gudjonsson, 1984) is a well-studied and widely used measure of individual
differences in interrogative suggestibility. Most previous research
with the GSS2 has focused on the role of personality and social variables
in interrogative suggestibility. The goal of the present study was
to investigate whether individual differences in cognitive/memorial
variables might also play a role in suggestibility, as measured by the
GSS2. Specifically, this study assessed whether high-suggestible participants
(as measured by the GSS2) would perform more poorly on an
unrelated source-monitoring task involving perceptual overlap between