When does the intention-superiority effect occur? Activation patterns before and after task completion, and moderating variables

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 140-156

  Penningroth, Suzanna L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

Author keywords

Cue source; Intention superiority effect; Prospective memory; State versus action orientation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBAL MEMORY; WORD RECOGNITION; ADOLESCENT; ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CUE SOURCE; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; INTENTION SUPERIORITY EFFECT; LEARNING; LONG TERM MEMORY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MENTAL TASK; MOTIVATION; ORIENTATION; PERSONALITY; PROSPECTIVE MEMORY TASK; STATE VERSUS ACTION ORIENTATION;

EID: 79959808836     PISSN: 20445911     EISSN: 2044592X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2011.474195     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Badets, A., Blandin, Y., Bouquet, C. A., & Shea, C. H. (2006). The intention superiority effect in motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 491-505. (Pubitemid 43883053)
3. Beckmann, J. (1994). Volitional correlates of action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 155-166). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
4. Cohen, A.-L., Dixon, R. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2005). The intention interference effect and aging: Similar magnitude of effects for young and old adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1177-1197. (Pubitemid 43103761)
5. Cohen, R. L. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 267-281.
6. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717-726.
7. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Ellis, J. (1996). Prospective memory or the realization of delayed intentions: A conceptual framework for research. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Eschen, A., Freeman, J., Dietrich, T., Martin, M., Ellis, J., Martin, E., et al. (2007). Motor brain regions are involved in the encoding of delayed intentions: A fMRI study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 64, 259-268. (Pubitemid 46783067)
10. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
11. Francis, W. N., Kucera, H., & Mackie, A. W. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Freeman, J. E., & Ellis, J. A. (2003a). The intentionsuperiority effect for naturally occurring activities: The role of intention accessibility in everyday prospective remembering in young and older adults. nternational Journal of Psychology, 38, 215-228. (Pubitemid 37177715)
13. Freeman, J. E., & Ellis, J. A. (2003b). The representation of delayed intentions: A prospective subjectperformed task? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 976-992. (Pubitemid 37268941)
14. Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211-1226.
15. Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1996). Remembering what to do: Explicit and implicit memory for intentions. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 53-91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Graf, P., & Mandler, G. (1984). Activation makes words more accessible, but not necessarily more retrievable. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 553-568.
17. Graf, P., & Uttl, B. (2001). Prospective memory: A new focus for research. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 437-450. (Pubitemid 34095204)
18. Jahn, P., & Engelkamp, J. (2003). Design-effects in prospective and retrospective memory for actions. Experimental Psychology, 50, 4-15. (Pubitemid 38355436)
19. Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2002). Complex prospective memory and executive control of working memory: A process model. Psychologische Beitrage, 44, 303-318.
20. Klinger, E., & Murphy, M. D. (1994). Action orientation and personality: Some evidence on the construct validity of the Action Control Scale. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 79-92). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
21. Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H., & Nussbaum, A. (1990). Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-berecalled tasks. Memory and Cognition, 18, 568-578. (Pubitemid 20358043)
22. Kuhl, J. (1981). Motivational and functional helplessness: The moderating effect of state versus action orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 155-170.
23. Kuhl, J. (1994a). A theory of action and state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9-46). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
24. Kuhl, J. (1994b). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47-59). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
25. Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994a). Introduction: Action versus state orientation in the context of personality and volition. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 1-5). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
26. Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994b). Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
27. Kuhl, J., & Goschke, T. (1994). State orientation and the activation and retrieval of intentions in memory. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 127-153). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
28. Kuhl, J., & Helle, P. (1986). Motivational and volitional determinants of depression: The degenerated-intention hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 247-251. (Pubitemid 17043222)
29. Kuhl, J., & Helle, P. (1994). Motivational and volitional determinants of depression: The degenerated-intention hypothesis. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 283-296). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
30. Kuhl, J., & Kazen-Saad, M. (1988). A motivational approach to volition: Activation and de-activation of memory representations related to uncompleted intentions. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 63-85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
31. Kvavilashvili, L. (1987). Remembering intention as a distinct form of memory. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 507-518.
32. Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., Meeks, J. T., Clark-Foos, A., & Hicks, J. L. (2007). Memory for intention-related material presented in a to-be-ignored channel. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1197-1204. (Pubitemid 350044401)
33. Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 336-349. (Pubitemid 128549078)
34. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bink, M. L. (1998). Activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 350-361.
35. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bryan, E. S. (1999). The activation of unrelated and canceled intentions. Memory and Cognition, 27, 320-327. (Pubitemid 29190648)
36. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Watson, V. (2002). The dynamics of intention retrieval and coordination of action in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 652-659.
37. Maylor, E. A., Chater, N., & Brown, G D. A. (2001). Scale invariance in the retrieval of retrospective and prospective memories. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 162-167. (Pubitemid 33604168)
38. Maylor, E. A., Darby, R. J., & Della Sala, S. (2000). Retrieval of performed versus to-be-performed tasks: A naturalistic study of the intention-superiority effect in normal aging and dementia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S83-S98.
39. Nowinski, J. L., Holbrook, J., & Dismukes, R. K. (2005, May). Effects of lingering intentions on subsequent tasks. Poster presented at the conference of the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles, CA.
40. Penningroth, S. L. (2005a). Effects of attentional demand, cue typicality, and priming on an eventbased prospective memory task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 885-897. (Pubitemid 41749130)
41. Penningroth, S. L. (2005b). Free recall of everyday retrospective and prospective memories: The intention-superiority effect is moderated by action vs. state orientation and by gender. Memory, 13, 711-724. (Pubitemid 41582277)
42. Penningroth, S. L., Graf, P., & Gray, J. (2010). The effect of a working memory load on the intentionsuperiority effect: Examining features of automaticity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. The American Psychologist, 44, 1276-1284.
44. Tabachnick, B. G, & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
45. Teasdale, J. D., Dritschel, B. H., Taylor, M. J., Proctor, L., Lloyd, C. A., Nimmo-Smith, I., et al. (1995). Stimulus-independent thought depends on central executive resources. Memory and Cognition, 23, 551-559.