In the context of prospective memory, which of the following scenarios depict event-based tasks?

Prospective memory (PM) refers to the ability of initiating and implementing intentions at an appropriate future (time-) point (McDaniel & Einstein, 2007). Depending on the cue that indicates the appropriate moment for intention initiation and execution, two types of PM tasks can be differentiated: Time-based PM, i.e. remembering to initiate the intended action at a certain time-point in the future or when a certain period of time has elapsed (e.g., attending a meeting at 3 pm) vs. event-based PM, which requires intention initiation when a certain external cue appears (e.g., passing a message to a friend when meeting him, Ellis, 1996). PM tasks are dual-task situations consisting of an ongoing activity and the PM task itself. Thus, both tasks compete for the limited amount of cognitive resources (e.g., Kliegel, Martin, McDaniel, & Einstein, 2001) and require more or less direct attention to be executed.

PM performance increases from childhood across adolescence to young adulthood (e.g., Leigh & Marcovitch, 2014; Smith, Bayen, & Martin, 2010). This performance improvement seems to be driven by the parallel development of cognitive control functions (e.g., inhibition, updating and switching) as well as retrospective memory (for a review see Mahy, Moses, & Kliegel, 2014; Zuber and Kliegel, 2019).

Effects of PM cue features on PM retrieval

According to the multiprocess framework (McDaniel and Einstein (2000), task characteristics and individual difference variables affect the extent to which cognitive control processes are needed to succeed in PM tasks. For instance, perceptually salient PM cues (compared to the cues of the competing ongoing task) may capture attention more automatically, resulting in a rather spontaneous retrieval of the delayed intention, and rather automatic inhibition of the ongoing task and switching from

The present studies

The present studies aimed at thoroughly investigating event-based PM development in children and adolescents, while simultaneously testing for beneficial effects of implementation intentions under varying task conditions in these age groups (aims of Study 1 and Study 2). Specifically, Study 1 set out to test whether the allocation of cognitive resources to either the PM or the ongoing task (manipulated via importance instructions) affects PM performance and the effects of implementation

Participants

Overall, 171 individuals, consisting of 57 younger (age range: 9;01–10;01 years), 57 older school-aged children (age range: 11;09–13;02 years) and 57 adolescents (age range: 14;07–16;01 years), were included in this study. Participants were recruited from local schools and through advertisements. Children who were not able to recall or recognize all PM cues at the end of the testing session were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 124 individuals (30 younger, M = 9.10 years, SD = .31, 47

Study 2 – effects of implementation intentions and switching demands of the ongoing task on children’s and adolescents’ PM

This second study aimed at testing whether implementation intentions may prevent a decrease in PM performance in developing populations when the cognitive demands of the applied ongoing task are increased. Overall, the difficulty level of the ongoing task has been found to impact PM performance in different age groups; with worse performance in highly demanding task conditions as compared to less difficult task conditions (for a study on older adults, see e.g., Einstein, Smith, McDaniel, &

General discussion

The present studies provided a thorough investigation of event-based PM development in children and adolescents, while simultaneously testing effects of implementation intentions under varying task conditions in these age groups for the first time. Specifically, the allocation of cognitive resources to either the PM or the ongoing task and the availability of cognitive resources were manipulated via importance instructions (Study 1) and switching demands of the ongoing task (Study 2),

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German Research Foundation, Germany (DFG grant SFB 940/1). The authors would like to thank the participants who took part in this study, and their parents, without whom this project would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Professor Peter Rendell for his invaluable support and advice.

Cited by (1)

Recommended articles (6)