Good sleep quality is important to cognition, physical health, mental well‐being, and creativity—factors critical to academic and professional success. But, undergraduate students often report engaging in short, irregular, and poor‐quality sleep. Anecdotal and questionnaire data suggest that poor sleep habits might be prevalent in students who are in studio‐ or project‐based majors that implicitly encourage consecutive nights of disrupted sleep to complete projects. We investigated sleep quantity and quality using both objective measures (wristband actigraphy monitoring) and subjective measures (sleep diary) in 28 interior design undergraduate students for a 7‐day period. Our primary aim was to measure sleep quantity (total sleep time) and quality (e.g., nighttime awakenings) and to compare whether undergraduate interior design students' objective measures of sleep (actigraphy) differed from their subjective measures (sleep diary). The secondary aim was to investigate detrimental outcomes of poor sleep habits on laboratory‐based measures of cognitive function (symmetry span, prospective memory, Raven's progressive matrices, remote associates task) that were administered pre‐ and poststudy. We found that the interior design students in our study overestimated their total sleep time by 36 minutes, that 79% of students slept for fewer than 7 hours at least three nights per week, and that many students cycled between nights of restricted/short sleep and recovery/long sleep. Importantly, students who maintained short sleep durations, highly variable night‐to‐night sleep durations, or had fragmented sleep (i.e., waking after sleep onset) demonstrated pre‐ to poststudy declines on the laboratory measure of creativity (remote associates task). These findings suggest the need for further investigations, which may lead to a broader discussion of studio culture and the role of the “all‐nighter,” both in professional practice and in design education.

For nearly 50 years, psychologists have studied prospective memory, or the ability to execute delayed intentions. Yet, there remains a gap in understanding as to whether initial encoding of the intention must be elaborative and strategic, or whether some components of successful encoding can occur in a perfunctory, transient manner. In eight studies (N = 680), we instructed participants to remember to press the Q key if they saw words representing fruits (cue) during an ongoing lexical decision task. They then typed what they were thinking and responded whether they encoded fruits as a general category, as specific exemplars, or hardly thought about it at all. Consistent with the perfunctory view, participants often reported mind wandering (42.9%) and hardly thinking about the prospective memory task (22.5%). Even though participants were given a general category cue, many participants generated specific category exemplars (34.5%). Bayesian analyses of encoding durations indicated that specific exemplars came to mind in a perfunctory manner rather than via strategic, elaborative mechanisms. Few participants correctly guessed the research hypotheses and changing from fruit category cues to initial-letter cues eliminated reports of specific exemplar generation, thereby arguing against demand characteristics in the thought probe procedure. In a final experiment, encoding duration was unrelated to prospective memory performance; however, specific-exemplar encoders outperformed general-category encoders with no ongoing task monitoring costs. Our findings reveal substantial variability in intention encoding, and demonstrate that some components of prospective memory encoding can be done “in passing.”