Multiple Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval: Factors Determining Monitoring Versus Spontaneous Retrieval

Autor/inn/en	Einstein, Gilles O.; McDaniel, Mark A.; Thomas, Ruthann; Mayfield, Sara; Shank, Hilary; Morrisette, Nova; Breneiser, Jennifer
Titel	Multiple Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval: Factors Determining Monitoring Versus Spontaneous Retrieval
Quelle	In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134 (2005) 3, S.327-342 (16 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0096-3445
Schlagwörter	Memory; Cognitive Processes; Recall (Psychology); Task Analysis; Individual Differences; Predictor Variables; Performance Factors; Attribution Theory; Experimental Psychology + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Gedächtnis; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Abberufung; Aufgabenanalyse; Individueller Unterschied; Prädiktor; Leistungsindikator; Experimentelle Psychologie
Abstract	Theoretically, prospective memory retrieval can be accomplished either by controlled monitoring of the environment for a target event or by a more reflexive process that spontaneously responds to the presence of a target event. These views were evaluated in Experiments 1-4 by examining whether performing a prospective memory task produced costs on the speed of performing the ongoing task. In Experiment 5, the authors directly tested for the existence of spontaneous retrieval. The results supported the multiprocess theory (M. A. McDaniel & G. O. Einstein, 2000) predictions that (a) spontaneous retrieval can occur and can support good prospective memory and (b) depending on task demands and individual differences, people rely to different degrees on monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval for prospective remembering. (Author).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications.
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10