# Presentation: 538179

## The Effects of Cue Factors and Priming on Prospective Memory Performance

**REFERENCES**
- Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Troetschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. *Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, *1014-1027.
- Ellis, J., Kvavilashvili, L., & Milne, A. (1999). Experimental tests of prospective remembering: The influence of cue-event frequency on performance. *British Journal of Psychology, 90, *9-23.
- Ellis, J. & Milne, A. (1996). Retrieval cue specificity and the realization of delayed intentions. *The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, *862-887.
- McDaniel, M. A. & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, *S127-S144.

**The Effects of Cue Factors and Priming on Prospective Memory Performance**

**Jon B. Holbrook**
- San Jose State University Foundation/NASA Ames Research Center

**BACKGROUND**
- Prospective memory (PM) requires recollection of an intended action without an explicit prompt to attempt retrieval. McDaniel and Einstein (2000) have proposed a multiprocess framework in which retrieval of an intention may be supported by strategic monitoring of the environment for the target event as well as by automatic retrieval of the intention triggered by environmental cues. McDaniel and Einstein argue that the extent to which PM retrieval relies on automatic versus strategic processing depends on the characteristics of the PM task, target cue, ongoing task, and the individual.
- It is assumed that strategic monitoring for the PM target cue draws upon resources that could otherwise be allocated to performing the ongoing task. Therefore, any cost (i.e., decreased accuracy or increased response latency) to ongoing task performance when accompanied by a concurrent PM task would suggest that participants are employing a monitoring strategy or otherwise devoting resources to maintaining the intended goal.
- Our study explores specific conditions that may affect relative use of automatic and strategic processing when performing PM tasks. We examined the effects of cue specificity and cue frequency on both PM and ongoing task performance. These variables have already been shown to affect PM performance (e.g., Ellis & Milne, 1996; Ellis, Kvavilashvili, & Milne, 1999). However, examination of costs to the ongoing task under these conditions should allow us to examine whether the effects of these manipulations reflect a change in strategy by the participants.
- We also attempted to manipulate the likelihood that participants would engage in strategic monitoring. Bargh et al. (2001) have provided evidence that mental representations of goals can become activated outside of conscious awareness, and subsequent behavior can be guided by these goals. Accordingly, some participants in the current study were exposed to concepts related to conscientious task performance, and use of strategies was evaluated with post-experiment debriefings. We predicted that primed participants would be more likely to engage in strategic monitoring processes to carry out the PM task.
**METHOD**
**Participants**
- 88 university students between ages 18-40 participated for course credit.
**Procedure**
- Participants received three blocks of 78 ongoing task trials.  They saw three words on the computer screen, one above the other two.  Their task was to choose which of the two bottom words was most like the top word.
- Between blocks 1 and 2, participants completed a “filler” task in which they constructed grammatically correct sentences out of sets of five words presented in a scrambled order (e.g., *test his survived chemistry Joe*).
- For 72 participants, the filler task was preceded by a PM instruction to press the “A” key on the computer keyboard any time they saw a PM target presented as one of the words in the ongoing task.
- The other 16 participants never received PM instructions, providing a baseline condition.

**Independent variables**
- _PM target specificity_. Between subjects, 3 levels
- one target = lemon, lime, OR raisin
- three targets = lemon, lime, AND raisin (respond to ANY of these words)
- category label = fruit (respond to ANY fruit name)
- _PM target frequency_. Within subjects, 2 levels (counterbalanced across blocks 2 and 3)
- Low frequency = 3 targets (every 26 trials/90 s)
- High frequency = 6 targets (every 13 trials/45 s) or 9 targets (every 9 trials/30 s)
- _Strategy use_. Between subjects, 2 levels (determined by post-experiment questionnaire)
- Strategy reported (e.g., consciously searched for PM target)
- No strategy reported (e.g., let PM target “pop out”)
- _Priming_. Between subjects, 2 levels
- Primed = during filler task, half the sentences included concepts related to conscientious PM performance (*respond, examine, keep in mind, search, think about, check, remember*).
- Not primed = during filler task, all sentences contained performance-neutral terms.
**RESULTS**

**CONCLUSIONS**
- Prospective remembering incurred costs to the ongoing tasks under some conditions, but not others.  This finding is consistent with the multiprocess framework proposed by McDaniel and Einstein (2000).
- Costs to the ongoing task of performing a concurrent PM task may be mitigated by practice or experience, or by high PM target specificity.
- Priming participants through the presentation of concepts related to conscientious performance correlated with reported use of monitoring strategies.  Given that the use of monitoring strategies seemed to improve PM performance, techniques such as this may prove useful in the development of countermeasures for PM failures.

_**PM Target Specificity**_
- Introduction of a PM task (in block 2) produced a significant cost to ongoing task RT only for “3-targets” and “category” conditions.
- No cost to ongoing task RT was detected in block 3 for any condition, despite continued presence of a concurrent PM task.
- Faster block 3 RTs do not reflect a practice effect on the ongoing task alone, because RTs in the “no PM task” condition were equivalent across all 3 blocks.

- Note: In the figure above, asterisk (*) indicates significant difference from Block 1 RT, *p* < .05.
- Overall PM accuracy increased from block 2 to block 3.
- In general, participants were both faster to respond to ongoing task trials and more accurate on the PM task in block 3 (i.e., no speed-accuracy tradeoff).

_**PM Target Frequency**_
- Overall, participants’ PM responses were more accurate in the high frequency condition.
- Performance in the low frequency condition was more accurate when preceded by a high frequency block.
- No significant effect of target frequency on RT to ongoing task trials was detected.

- Priming correlated with reported use of monitoring strategies (see table above).
- Participants who reported using a monitoring strategy were more accurate on the PM task.
- No significant effect of reported strategy use on RT to ongoing task trials was detected.

|  | Primed | Not primed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Strategy | 25 | 9 |
| No strategy | 11 | 27 |

_**Priming and Reported Use of Monitoring Strategies**_

**R. Key Dismukes**
- NASA Ames Research Center