An investigation of everyday prospective memory

Marsh, Richard L.; Hicks, Jason L.; Landau, Joshua D. · 1998 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03211383

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the cognitive mechanisms underlying everyday prospective memory—the ability to remember to carry out planned intentions in the future. The authors argue that successful prospective remembering involves more than mere memory retrieval; it requires attentional capacities, metamemory, and planning processes that allow individuals to reprioritize intentions based on daily demands. To address the lack of ecological validity in laboratory studies and the lack of experimental control in naturalistic studies, the researchers employed a naturalistic paradigm involving three experiments with a total of 405 undergraduate participants. In Experiment 1, 135 participants documented their plans for a week and reported completion status one week later. The study categorized plans into six types (e.g., commitments, intentions to communicate) and measured individual differences in memory and attention using self-report questionnaires and objective tests. Results indicated that overt forgetting was rare (approximately 13% of failures); instead, most unfulfilled intentions resulted from reprioritization or external constraints. Crucially, participants who habitually used daily planners ("recorders") performed equally well in completing intentions as those who did not ("nonrecorders"). However, recorders scored significantly lower on objective measures of memory and attention and reported poorer subjective memory abilities, suggesting that planners serve as a compensatory device for individuals with lower cognitive capacities. Experiment 2 examined the frequency with which participants reviewed their plans. Using tally counters, the study found that participants wearing a reminder wristband reviewed their plans nearly 50% more frequently than those without. This manipulation confirmed that external cues significantly increase the monitoring of intentions. The study also replicated the finding that recorders had lower baseline memory and attention scores than nonrecorders. The findings suggest that prospective memory is a multidimensional process driven by individual differences in cognitive capacity and the use of external aids. The equivalence in performance between recorders and nonrecorders, despite the former’s lower cognitive scores, highlights the role of compensatory strategies. Furthermore, the dominance of reprioritization over forgetting indicates that prospective memory failures are often strategic decisions rather than memory lapses. The authors conclude that comprehensive understanding of prospective memory requires accounting for attentional switching, planning, and the natural use of memory aids, rather than focusing solely on retrospective memory mechanisms.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• prospective memory interruptions