Strategies used for remembering

PM performance can be influenced by the strength of an association between a PM cue and an intended action (see section 2.3.3.1). However, the impact that a strong cue-action association can have on PM performance is also believed to underpin the effectiveness of an important retrieval strategy (McFarland & Glisky, 2012). Gollwitzer (1999) developed a technique to improve PM by integrating two fundamental components of delayed intentions;

the situation (i.e., the retrieval context) which provides an opportunity for a person to execute an intention (where and when an intention should be retrieved) and the intended action (what it is that has to be done). This combination of information allows people to form a verbal commitment or an association in the structure of “if X occurs, then I will do Y”. Gollwitzer called these verbal commitments, implementation intentions and there is a substantial amount of research which suggests that this technique is an effective means of fulfilling delayed intentions (Chasteen, Park & Shwarz, 2001; Cohen & Gollwitzer, 2006; Kardiasmenos, Clawson, Wilken & Wallin, 2008; Schnitzspahn & Kliegel, 2009).

Further research has explored the extent to which the use of imagery techniques can improve prospective remembering. To demonstrate, in normal event-based PM tasks, participants are asked to respond to an environmental cue during the completion of an ongoing task. By using imagery techniques, participants are able to visualise themselves witnessing and responding to PM related stimuli during an ongoing task (e.g., responding to an animal word (PM cue) during a lexical decision task) (Brewer, Knight, Thadeus meeks &

Marsh, 2011). Of the few studies that have investigated the effects of imagery techniques on PM performance, overall findings have been relatively inconclusive. Guynn, McDaniel and Einstein (1998) found that participants who were asked to visualise PM cues in the context of their occurrence (i.e., imagine the PM cue appearing in an ongoing task) performed similarly to participants who were given standard instructions (no instruction to visualise the PM cue).

Similarly, McDaniel et al. (2008) failed to find any effect of imagery instruction on PM performance. In contrast to these findings, other studies have reported improved PM performance when participants are explicitly instructed to imagine the presentation of the PM cue during an ongoing task (Brewer et al., 2011; Meeks & Marsh, 2010; Paraskevaides et al., 2010). Brewer and colleagues (2011) explain that imagery fosters a cue-to-context association and in doing so, reduces interference to irrelevant information in the ongoing task (i.e., lures). In addition, imagining may increase PM performance by increasing the salience of PM cues so that they are detected more easily when they are presented (Paraskevaides et al., 2010).

An alternative explanation suggests that PM performance is enhanced because participants rely on episodic memory to imagine future contexts (Brewer & Marsh, 2010).

Findings from Brewer and Marsh (2010) have shown increased prospective remembering when participants are provided with additional episodic information about the context in which PM cues will occur before encoding. Brewer and Marsh (2010) suggest that the additional episodic information about the context in which PM cues will later appear allows participants to encode a more detailed representation of their future context. Conclusions from this particular study suggest that the extent to which PM performance is improved by the use of imagery is highly dependent on episodic memory simulation. If this is the case, this concept may explain why some studies have failed to report positive effects of imagery on prospective remembering (McDaniel et al., 2008). That is, participants may have failed to produce detailed cue-to-context representations due to a lack of episodic information relating to the PM cue and its future context before encoding.

Forming strong cue-to-context representations can have several consequences to processing in the ongoing task (Brewer et al., 2010). First, following a strengthened association between PM cues and future context where they are expected to occur, the encoded intention becomes almost immediately active when the appropriate context arises.

Ultimately, this is proposed to lead to higher levels of PM performance (see also Marsh, Hicks & Cook, 2006). Second, in cases where the context is a critical component of the encoded intention (e.g., during the COST where the PM response involves pressing a particular key whenever you see the word, PLANE written in red ink and in Arial font), the use of imagery techniques allows for people to verify that the PM cue is present and in the correct context. In this situation, the PM response should not be executed unless the PM target (i.e., PLANE) is presented in the correct context (i.e., it must be written in red ink and in Arial font). Third, information that is not related to the intention but occurs in the correct context is recognised and subsequently rejected provided that a strong cue-to-context association has been formed.

Given that implementation intentions and imagery techniques have both been shown to have positive effects on prospective remembering, research has begun to investigate whether or not the combined use of both strategies can improve PM performance beyond the use of either strategy alone. Once again, the findings surrounding this proposal have been inconclusive. McDaniel et al. (2008) found that imagery instruction which included a verbal

“if...then” commitment (combined imagery and implementation intention group) enhanced PM performance. However, no difference in PM performance was found between participants who were provided with imagery instruction alone and participants were provided with standard instructions (i.e., no explicit instruction to visualise). Overall, these findings appear to indicate that the verbal commitment (implementation intention) was the vital component of the combined imagery and implementation intention group which improved PM performance.

In a more recent study, McFarland and Glisky (2011) divided a sample of 64 undergraduate students into one of four instructional conditions (read only, implementation intention only, imagery only, combined implementation intention and imagery). Performance on a laboratory based PM task was measured. Participants in the implementation intention only, imagery only and the combined implementation intention and imagery groups all performed significantly better than participants in the read-only group. However, there was

no difference in PM performance between the three other instructional groups. Thus, there does not appear to be any additional benefit to PM performance when implementation intention and imagery techniques are used together compared to when either strategy is used alone. This finding supports Cohen and Gollwitzer’s (2008) suggestion that imagery is not a vital component of implementation intentions.

Other strategies that have been linked to improved remembering include metacognitive factors. More specifically, making performance predictions (i.e.

metacognition) has been shown to increase performance on RM tasks (Spellman & Bjork, 1992). Given that RM has been associated with PM performance; it is plausible that PM may also be affected by metacognitive factors. Only a few studies have directly investigated the effects of metacognition on PM (Devolder, Brigham, & Pressley, 1990; Knight, Harnett, &

Titov, 2005; Meeks, Hicks, & Marsh, 2007). However, the research that is available suggests that people with higher general memory self-efficacy (beliefs about one’s own memory abilities) perform better in laboratory-based PM tasks compared to participants with lower memory self-efficacy (McDonald-Miszczak, Gould, & Tychynski, 1999; Zeintl, Kliegel, Rast, & Zimprich, 2006).

In another study, Meeks et al. (2007) asked participants to complete a lexical decision task (i.e., an ongoing task) and to make a PM response following the presentation of an animal word (animal condition) or a word containing the syllable tor (syllable condition).

Overall, participants were shown to underestimate PM performance and these findings are consistent with those from another study in the literature (Knight et al., 2005). Further findings showed that performance predictions were positive correlated with overall success in the animal condition. Although findings from Meeks et al. (2007) suggest that people are aware of their PM ability, the findings have been criticised on methodological grounds. For example, performance predictions were made in reference to overall PM performance (animal condition & syllable condition combined) which may have resulted in inaccurate and vague performance predictions (Meier, von Wartburg, Matter, Rothen, & Reber, 2011). For example, in cases where participants reported confidence in their ability to perform PM tasks, it is unclear as to whether they were particularly confident in one particular condition or both conditions.

Knight et al. (2005) controlled for this factor by asking participants to provide a performance prediction for every PM cue in a PM task. Knight and colleagues investigated differences in predicted PM performance and actual PM performance between a group of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients and healthy controls. Participants watched a video where they took the role of a person driving and walking through a city. Participants were required to remember to execute several PM tasks (e.g., buy bread) when presented with one of 20 PM cues (e.g., bakery). Using a 4-point scale, participants were asked to indicate how likely they thought they were to execute each specific PM task. Patients overestimated their PM performance while the control group underestimated their PM performance. Correlational analyses revealed that both groups had metacognitive awareness of their PM performance.

A recent study by Meier et al. (2011) attempted to explore the extent to which making a PM performance prediction can enhance prospective remembering. One-hundred and forty undergraduate students performed a complex short-term memory task with a PM element.

Half of the participants were then asked to give performance predictions prior to performing a PM task. The specificity of the PM task was also manipulated. Participants were either instructed to make a prospective response to the presentation of a word that is a musical instrument (categorical condition) or to respond to the word “trumpet” (specific condition).

Performance predictions improved PM performance for the categorical condition only.

Several explanations have been put forward for this finding. First, Meier et al. (2011) suggest that simply thinking about carrying out a future intention leads to a more realistic opinion about task difficulty. This then results in the use of more efficient retrieval strategies which in turn enhance PM performance. Second, Meier and colleagues (2011) propose that making performance predictions strengthens the association between the PM cue and the retrieval context (information relating to where and when an intention should be retrieved).

Thus, when a PM cue is encountered in the correct context, the PM intention is likely to be retrieved. Third, Meier et al. (2011) argue that making performance predictions may alter the dynamics of the PM tasks. For example, making a performance prediction might increase participants’ commitment and/or motivation towards the PM task. The resultant increase in commitment and/or motivation may accentuate perceived task importance (see Meier et al., 2011). This is noteworthy considering that higher perceived task importance has been linked to increased PM performance (Kliegel et al., 2004)

Further evidence from Meier et al’s (2011) study showed that cue specificity (categorical or specific) had a significant effect on retrieval experience. Specific PM instructions (i.e., respond to the word “trumpet”) encouraged the use of spontaneous retrieval strategies.

Although speculative, it is likely that participants in the specific PM instruction condition formed specific cue-action pairings whereas participants in the categorical PM instruction condition formed more general cue-action pairings. Einstein and McDaniel (1996) propose that specific cue-action pairings receive greater activation compared to general cue-action pairings. Increased activation resulting from the formation of specific cue-action pairings increases the likelihood of the intended action being retrieved when the PM cue is presented.

Importantly, PM cues which are highly associated with an intention are suggested to involve automatic retrieval processes (McDaniel et al., 1998).