The intention interference effect and aging: similar magnitude of effects for young and old adults

Abstract

In young adults, intentions have been shown to be more accessible (e.g. faster reaction times and higher accuracy) compared to other sorts of to-be-remembered information, a result termed an 'intention superiority effect' (Goschke & Kuhl, 1993). In the current study, we assessed whether older adults also demonstrate this superiority of intention-related material and we used a new interference paradigm to examine performance. On each trial, participants performed a Stroop-like colour-naming task on a short series of words, including words related to an intention that they encoded at the beginning of the trial. In Experiment 1, results revealed an 'intention interference effect' for both young and older adults in which performance was slower for words belonging to an intention that participants intended to carry out versus an intention that did not have to be executed.In Experiment 2, we tested the effect that completing an intention had on the representation of intentions. For both groups, completing an intention led to a decrease in interference in Stroop task performance.

Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories

“…The results of the present research replicate Einstein et al's (2005) results by demonstrating longer RTs to target words than to control words when the prospective memory task was suspended (i.e., the intention interference effect; A.-L. Cohen et al, 2005). This effect occurred during a phase that did not require monitoring processes to be engaged or the prospective memory task to be performed.…”

“…Furthermore, it is highly likely that such retrieval (or noticing) was spontaneous (see A.-L. Cohen et al, 2005, for a similar interpretation). The lexical decision task occurred after performance of the prospective memory task (see the Zeigarnik task for comparison : Schiffman & Greist-Bousquet, 1992), thereby attenuating possible confusion for the participants about when the prospective memory task should be performed.…”

“…Their interpretation was that presentation of the target word spontaneously triggered retrieval of the intention, and this retrieval interfered somewhat with the lexical decision response. This intention interference effect (A.-L. Cohen, Dixon, & Lindsay, 2005) was unlikely to be explained by devotion of resources to monitoring or Then, the participants performed another block of 10 practice trials in which each target word appeared once. After the second imagerating practice block, the participants filled out forms (e.g., a vocabulary test) before completing a block of 80 experimental imagerating trials.…”

Implementation intention encoding does not automatize prospective memory responding

“…Target and control items were separated by at least 3 filler items. We presented the target items during this phase for purposes not directly related to the present objectives 1 (see Scullin et al, 2009, for a discussion relating to this particular aspect of the paradigm; see also Cohen, Dixon, & Lindsay, 2005;Einstein et al, 2005, Experiment 5).…”

Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember

“…For example, remembering to turn off one's cell phone before an important meeting may be temporarily forgotten if one becomes engrossed in a conversation with a colleague prior to the meeting. This example underscores the key feature of prospective memory-that it is inherently effortful, since it requires that a person retrieve an intention while in the midst of some other competing activity (Cohen, Dixon, & Lindsay, 2005;Craik & Kerr, 1996;Ellis, 1996;Maylor, 1996;West & Craik, 1999). Therefore, successful prospective memory requires that a person juggle multiple cognitive demands involving intermittent prospective memory responses while maintaining performance of an ongoing activity (Cohen, West, & Craik, 2001).…”