Investigating how implementation intentions improve non-focal prospective memory tasks

Abstract

Implementation intentions are a self-regulatory strategy broadly studied in the area of social cognition that can improve realization of one’s goals and improve performance on prospective memory tasks. Three experiments, using a non-focal task for which the prospective memory targets were specified at the time of intention formation, investigated whether (and how) implementation intentions can improve non-focal prospective memory performance. An improvement in prospective memory performance was accompanied by an increase in the allocation of conscious resources to the prospective memory task, but not by an increase in perceived importance of the prospective memory task. The third experiment also investigated the effects of implementation intentions on recall of the appropriate action and found that accurate action recall was improved by implementation intentions. Finally, the effect of implementation intention instructions on cognitive processes that underlie non-focal prospective memory performance was investigated using a multinomial model.

Prospective memory in context: Moving through a familiar space.

“…Once the intention to do something has been retrieved, PAM also includes assumptions about the role of retrospective memory to determine what is to be done. A model containing the prospective and the retrospective components has consistently provided a good fit to the data (Smith & Bayen, 2004; see Smith, McConnell Rodgers, McVay, Lopez, & Loft, 2014 and Smith & Hunt, 2014, for reviews of applications of the model). However, application of the model and the theory to day-to-day activities faces a plausibility challenge.…”

Hierarchical Multinomial Modeling Approaches

“…E. Smith & Hunt, 2014; R. E. Smith et al, 2011; R. E. Smith, McConnel Rogers, McVay, Lopez, & Loft, 2014).…”

Forming implementation intentions improves prospective memory in early psychosis

“…If this analysis is correct then the difference in findings for the CAM-PROMPT and the EMPT indicates that the early psychosis group showed impairment when the PM cue was non-focal but not when it was focal. As noted earlier, there is some evidence (Smith et al, 2014) that when the PM cue is non-focal there is evidence of a cost to performance of the central task. In the present study, there were differences between the control and early psychosis group on the ongoing task, with the early psychosis group showing poorer performance.…”

“…The PM cue can be part of the ongoing task such that it is part of the processing required for accurate task completion, in which case it is described as focal, or it may not be highly integrated with the ongoing task, in which case it is non-focal. Smith et al (2014) noted that implementation intentions were more effective when the PM cue was focal and that when the PM cue was non-focal there was evidence of a cost to performance of the ongoing task. Chen et al (2015) in their meta-analysis found no difference in the effectiveness of implementation intentions when PM cues were focal or non-focal, but some evidence for response cost to the ongoing task when PM performance is improved.…”

“…In examining the effectiveness of implementation intentions, Smith et al (2014) drew attention to an important distinction for PM as assessed with the dual task paradigm. The PM cue can be part of the ongoing task such that it is part of the processing required for accurate task completion, in which case it is described as focal, or it may not be highly integrated with the ongoing task, in which case it is non-focal.…”