Differences in target monitoring in a prospective memory task
Rafał Albiński , Grzegorz Sędek , Matthias Kliegel
AbstractThe goal of the present study was to examine individual differences in the degree to which controlled attention is allocated towards a prospective memory (PM) task. Using a PM task that should require high levels of controlled attention in a sample of 138 young, middle-aged, and older adults, two subgroups of participants could be identified, i.e., participants who clearly demonstrated evidence for monitoring and those for whom no clear evidence for monitoring was revealed. A control group (n 95) was tested to control for practice effects in the ongoing task. Differences between subgroups were examined in terms of age, PM accuracy, baseline ongoing task performance, and general negative mood. Nonmonitorers and monitorers differed in age (more older adults being nonmonitorers), ongoing task accuracy (a nonsignificant trend was observed here), PM task accuracy (both young and middle-aged/older monitorers were more accurate than nonmonitorers), and the number of reported depressive symptoms (nonmonitorers monitorers). Moreover, results showed that even in nonmonitorers PM accuracy was above floor level, indicating that noticing and reacting to some of PM cues is possible without strongly investing in resource demanding monitoring processes.
|Journal series||Journal of Cognitive Psychology, ISSN 2044-5911, (A 20 pkt)|
|Publication size in sheets||0.6|
|Keywords in English||Ageing; Monitoring processes; Prospective memory|
|Publication indicators||: 2012 = 0.76; : 2012 = 0.756 (2) - 2012=0.808 (5)|
|Citation count*||17 (2020-10-26)|
|Dorobek Naukowy - Preview URL||http://dn.swps.edu.pl/Podglad.aspx?WpisID=11541|
|Dorobek Naukowy - Approve URL||http://dn.swps.edu.pl/Biuro/ZatwierdzanieWpisu.aspx?WpisID=11541|
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.