Learning is impaired by activated intentions

Abstract

Two experiments examined the task interference that sometimes accrues from having an intention. In standard prospective memory tasks, latency is often slower to an ongoing task performed concurrently with having an intention than it is when no intention is given. If the locus of this slowing resulted from different attentional allocation policies in the two cases, we predicted that the process of learning a word list would be impaired if participants had an intention rather than if they did not. Four different event-based prospective memory tasks were used in Experiment 1 to demonstrate that worse free recall of a word list resulted when studied with a concurrent intention than with a control condition that had no intention. In that experiment, linking an intention to a distal context that was to occur after learning did not impair free recall. Two time-based tasks were used in Experiment 2 to demonstrate that possessing a time-based prospective memory also hinders learning, unless the intention is linked to a future context that is expected to occur after the study session. In the latter case, no impairment was obtained.

Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements

“…The present data may appear at odds with the finding of Cook, Marsh, Clark-Foos, and Meeks (2007) that PM tasks imposed on participants when lists of words were studied decreased the subsequent recall of those words. Cook et al concluded that PM task requirements during the study phase drew attention away from the creation of interitem associations that support free recall.…”

Individual differences in event-based prospective memory: Evidence for multiple processes supporting cue detection

“…Indeed, when participants perform a lexical decision task and possess an intention to respond to a nonfocal cue, they perform the task more slowly than a control group without an intention (Marsh et al, 2003). Evidence for such task interference from having an intention to respond to cues has also been found in a multitude of other experimental paradigms (Cook, Marsh, Clark-Foos, & Meeks, 2007;Smith, 2003). Although costs to ongoing-task performance have been found in many studies, convincingly demonstrated that under certain conditions, there are not always commensurate increases in ongoing-task latencies when participants hold focal event-based intentions.…”

Unfulfilled goals interfere with tasks that require executive functions

“…However, these costs are attributable to a period of reorientation that occurs irrespective of the state of one's goals (for a review, see Monsell, 2003). Another interference effect can occur when two goals are pursued simultaneously (Cohen, Jaudas, & Gollwitzer, 2008;Cook, Marsh, Clark-Foos, & Meeks, 2007;Einstein et al, 2005;Hicks, Marsh, & Cook, 2005). Neither of these effects, however, speaks to the interference that may come from a previously unfulfilled intention.…”