Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 2000 Prospective Memory: Contributions of Age, Individual Differences, and Metamemory. Celinda M. Reese Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Reese, Celinda M., "Prospective Memory: Contributions of Age, Individual Differences, and Metamemory." (2000). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 7385. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/7385 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PROSPECTIVE MEMORY: CONTRIBUTIONS OF AGE, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, AND METAMEMORY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Psychology by Celinda M. Reese B.S., Abilene Christian University, 1992 M.A, University of Richmond, 1996 December, 2000 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 9998704 UMI___ ® UMI Microform 9998704 Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation committee: Katie Cherry, Scott Feld, Jason Hicks, Don Marzolf, and Bob Mathews. This manuscript is stronger because of their time and insight. I would especially like to thank Katie Cherry for the knowledge and guidance she gave to me and for the countless hours she spent with me during my doctoral training. I would like to express my grateful appreciation to my parents who, through their unfailing patience and support, made it possible to achieve my dream of a career in psychology. I thank Susan Brigman and Laura Lajos for making graduate school more fun than I could have imagined. Finally, I thank Michael Melancon for providing constant encouragement and for making sure that the last two years of graduate school were filled with far more joy than stress. ii permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................iv ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1 PROSPECTIVE MEMORY RESEARCH...............................................................................3 METHOD...................................................................................................................................42 RESULTS................................................................................................................................... 51 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................83 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................... 95 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 98 VITA..........................................................................................................................................105 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission LIST OF TABLES 1. Memory Tasks Showing Differential Effects of Aging..................................................... 14 2. Frequently Used Questionnaires in Cognitive Aging Research..................................... 32 3. Demographic and Health Characteristics............................................................................43 4. Mean Prospective and Retrospective Memory Performance...........................................52 5. Mean Proportion of On-line Monitoring Responses......................................................... 54 6. Mean Ratings on Prospective Memory Monitoring during STM Task......................... 55 7. Mean Ratings of Importance Assigned to the STM versus the Prospective Task 56 8. Mean Ratings on the Memory Functioning Questionnaire..............................................57 9. Mean Proportion Correct on the Knowledge of Memory Aging Questionnaire.......... 58 10. Mean Prospective Memory by Age, Ability, and Probe Condition............................. 58 11. Working Memory Span Estimates.....................................................................................61 12. Mean Proportion of Participants Requiring One, Two, or Three Questions to Recall the Prospective Task................................................................................................65 13. Intercorrelations Among Variables (Monitoring)............................................................71 14. Intercorrelations Among Variables (Metamemory)........................................................ 73 15. Intercorrelations Among Variables....................................................................................76 16. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Prospective Memory).....................79 17. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Retrospective Memory)..................81 iv permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT The influence of age, ability, monitoring, and metamemory on event-based prospective memory was examined using an adapted version of G. O. Einstein and M. A. McDaniel’s (1990) task. Two samples of younger and older adults who differed in educational attainment and verbal ability were compared. Contrary to previous research (Cherry & LeCompte, 1999), the age/ability groups did not differ on prospective memory performance. On-line monitoring ratings were not related to prospective memory but posttest monitoring ratings were. Age differences in reports of task-irrelevant thoughts emerged from the on-line monitoring data. Although age and ability group differences on self-reports of memory functioning and memory knowledge were evident, neither memory functioning nor memory knowledge were strongly related to prospective memory performance. Recognition memory performance was the strongest predictor of successful prospective memory, followed by working memory. In contrast, age, ability, working memory, and recognition were all predictors of retrospective memory, with age, ability, and working memory making stronger contributions to retrospective than to prospective memory. These findings and their implications for current conceptions of prospective memory aging are discussed. v permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INTRODUCTION Prospective memory refers to memory for actions to be performed in the future, such as remembering to go to class at a certain time or remembering to stop by the store on the way home from work. As can be seen from these two examples, we confront many prospective