Cited by 170Cognitive Functions and MemoryMemory Processes and InfluencesAging and Gerontology Research

Prospective memory: When reminders fail

Open access
Guynn, Melissa J., Mcdaniel, Mark A., Einstein, Gilles O.·1998·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

A frequent assumption in the area of prospective memory is that a reminder to do an activity in the future improves the likelihood of doing the activity. The results of four experiments indicated, however, that the most general version of this assumption is incorrect. Subjects were either reminded of a prospective memory task several times during a retention interval or not reminded of the prospective memory task. The most effective reminders referred both to the prospective memory target events and to the intended activity. Reminders that referred only to the target events did not improve prospective memory (relative to a no-reminder control). Reminders that referred only to the intended activity did improve prospective memory, but not to the level of reminders that referred both to the target events and to the intended activity. Instructions to imagine oneself performing the prospective memory task did not further improve prospective memory. Neither the delay between the prospective memory instructions and the prospective memory cover task nor the delay between a reminder and a prospective memory target event significantly influenced performance. The results, which are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications, support a new theory of prospective memory and suggest surprising conditions under which reminders fail to benefit prospective memory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03201140

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The literature on delayed intentions has rarely examined the ways that people manipulate the environment themselves to create perceptual triggers.

    “While some studies have investigated the efficacy of experimenter-provided reminders (Guynn, McDaniel, & Einstein, 1998; Henry, Rendell, Phillips, Dunlop, & Kliegel, 2012; Loft, Smith, & Bhaskara, 2011; Vortac, Edwards, & Manning, 1995), the literature on delayed intentions has rarely examined the ways that we manipulate the environment ourselves to create perceptual triggers.”

    From Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment (2015) · cites this paper as Guynn, McDaniel, & Einstein, 1998

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. BURKES, M. (1994, July). The effect oflocal context on prospective mem- ory performance in a semantic processing task. Paper presented at the Practical Aspects of Memory Conference, College Park, MD.
  2. ELLIS, J. A. (1996). Prospective memory or the realization ofdelayed in- tentions: A conceptual framework for research. In M. A Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: The- ory and applications (pp. 1-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. GOSCHKE, T, & KUHL, 1.(1993). Representation ofintentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1211-1226.
  4. TuLVING, E. (1983). Elements ofepisodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guynn, M. J., Mcdaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Furman University (US)
Corresponding author
Guynn, Melissa J.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
1998-03
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
287-298
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2093817188
Cited by
168
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of Arizona
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ag008436-05)
  • National Institute on Aging (AGO8436, AGO5627)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research
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, reminders, retention interval, theory of mind
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Cues, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Thinking, Verbal Learning

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