CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,149Cognitive Functions and MemoryMemory Processes and InfluencesAging and Gerontology Research

Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: a multiprocess framework

McDaniel, Mark A., Einstein, Gilles O.·2000·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.775
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Prospective memory situations involve forming intentions and then realizing those intentions at some appropriate time in the future. An interesting feature of most prospective remembering is that recollection of the intended action occurs without an explicit request to attempt retrieval, and we present two views on how this type of remembering can be accomplished. One could strategically monitor the environment for the presence of the target event, or one could rely on anticipated environmental conditions more or less automatically reinstating the intended action. We present data supporting both views and argue that people use multiple approaches for solving the problem of retrieving an intention (prospective memory) after a delay. Moreover, we suggest that the extent to which prospective remembering is supported by relatively automatic processes (versus strategic resource‐demanding monitoring) and the probability with which prospective memory is likely to be successful when relying on automatic processes varies as a function of the characteristics of the prospective memory task, target cue, ongoing task, and individual. We argue that the complexity of the empirical findings can best be understood by appealing to this multiprocess view of prospective memory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.775

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prospective memory research indicates that situations permit external cueing of an intended action whereas time cues require monitoring to identify the time to act.

    “We selected situations rather than times as cues, because prospective memory research indicates that situations permit external cueing of an intended action whereas time cues require monitoring to identify the time to act (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000).”

    From How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world (2010) · cites this paper as McDaniel & Einstein, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Furman University (US)
Corresponding author
McDaniel, Mark A.
ORCID
McDaniel, Mark A.
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-01
Volume
14
Issue
7
ISSN
  • 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.775
OpenAlex
W2017009386
Cited by
1,149
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 41
FWCI
13.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 453 d)
Locations
Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
prospective memory, intention retrieval, automatic processes, strategic monitoring, memory reinstatement, individual differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review