American Journal of Applied Psychology

| Peer-Reviewed |

Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery

Received: 30 April 2016    Accepted: 10 May 2016    Published: 30 December 2016
Views:       Downloads:

Share This Article

Abstract

The study adopted a study-test paradigm to investigate whether imagery has a similar effect on prospective memory as it does on retrospective memory. The sample consists of 160 introductory psychology students. The participants were randomly assigned into 2 between groups of imagery: no-imagery and imagery groups. All the participants first studied paired-associate words (List A-B) and were later tested on the paired-associate recall test and sentence construction task. The 2 tests were performed simultaneously. Results of data analyses using the multivariate statistical model showed that memory was better for participants in the imagery group than for participants in the no-imagery group for retrospective memory (p < .001), as well as for prospective memory (p < .001). The obtained effect sizes (ES) of 0.26 and 0.21 for retrospective and prospective memory respectively demonstrate that imagery affects not only retrospective memory, but also prospective memory.

DOI 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17
Published in American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 5, Issue 6, November 2016)
Page(s) 85-88
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Imagery, Paired-Associate Words, Prospective Memory, Retrospective Memory, Sentence Construction Task

References
[1] Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). “Memory”. New York: Psychology Press.
[2] Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). “Cognitive psychology and instruction” (3rdedn.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
[3] Cohen, A. L., Jaudas, A., & Gollinwitzer, P. M., (2008). “Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember”. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.149.
[4] Cohen, J. (1992). “A power primer”. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 115-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
[5] Einstein, O., & McDaniel, M. (2005). “Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes”. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x.
[6] Gene, A. B., Justine, K., Thadeus, M. J., & Richard, L. M. (2011). “On the role of imagery in event-based prospective memory”. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 901-907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.015.
[7] Kirk, R. E. (2005). The importance of effect magnitude. In S. F. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology. United Kingdom: Blackwell.
[8] Kliegel, M., & Martin, M (2003). “Prospective memory research: Why is it relevant?” International Journal of Psychology, 38 (4), 193-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000114.
[9] Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). “Remembering images”. In M. A. Gluck, J. R. Anderson, & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.). Memory and mind: A festschrift for Gordon H. Bower. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
[10] LaBoutiller, N., & Marks, D. F. (2003). “Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study”. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 245-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842084.
[11] Maylor, E. A., Smith, G., Della Salla, S., &Logie, R. H. (2002). “Prospective and retrospective memory in normal aging and dementia: An experimental study”. Memory & Cognition, 30 (6), 871-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210050117735.
[12] McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). “Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of anemerging field”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[13] McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Butler, K. M. (2008). “Implementation intentions facilitate prospective memory under high attention demand”. Memory & Cognition, 36 (4), 716-724. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0126-8.
[14] Meeks, J. T., & Marsh, R. L. (2010). “Implementation intentions about non focal event-based prospective memory tasks”. Psychological Research, 74, 82-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coccog2011.02.015.
[15] Mefoh, P. C., & Ezeh, V. C. (2016). Effect of field-dependent versus field-independent cognitive styles on prospective and retrospective memory slips. South African Journal of Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0081246316632969 sap.sagepub.com.
[16] Nash, U., Brittany, D. M., Gene, A. B., & Gregory, J. S. (2013). “Individual differences in everyday Retrospective memory failures”. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 7-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.11.003.
[17] Paivio, A. (1986). “Mental representation: A dual coding approach”. New York: Oxford University Press.
[18] Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). “Mental imagery: In search of a theory”. Behavioural and Brain Science, 25 (2), 157-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000043.
[19] Takahashi, M., Shimizu, H., Saito, S., & Tomoyori, H. (2006). “One percent ability and ninety-nine percent perspiration: A study of a Japanese memoirist”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1195-1200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1195.
[20] Waller, J., McCaffery, K., & Wardle, J. (2004). “Measuring cancer knowledge: Comparing prompted and unprompted recall”. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 219-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712604773952430.
[21] Winograd, E. (1988). “Some observations on prospective remembering”. In M. M. Greenberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sypes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 348-354). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Author Information
  • Department of Psychology, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

  • Department of Sociology/Psychology, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Godfery Okoye University, Enugu, Nigeria

Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh, Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi. (2016). Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(6), 85-88. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh; Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi. Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 5(6), 85-88. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh, Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi. Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery. Am J Appl Psychol. 2016;5(6):85-88. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17,
      author = {Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh and Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi},
      title = {Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery},
      journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
      volume = {5},
      number = {6},
      pages = {85-88},
      doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17},
      eprint = {https://download.sciencepg.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20160506.17},
      abstract = {The study adopted a study-test paradigm to investigate whether imagery has a similar effect on prospective memory as it does on retrospective memory. The sample consists of 160 introductory psychology students. The participants were randomly assigned into 2 between groups of imagery: no-imagery and imagery groups. All the participants first studied paired-associate words (List A-B) and were later tested on the paired-associate recall test and sentence construction task. The 2 tests were performed simultaneously. Results of data analyses using the multivariate statistical model showed that memory was better for participants in the imagery group than for participants in the no-imagery group for retrospective memory (p < .001), as well as for prospective memory (p < .001). The obtained effect sizes (ES) of 0.26 and 0.21 for retrospective and prospective memory respectively demonstrate that imagery affects not only retrospective memory, but also prospective memory.},
     year = {2016}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery
    AU  - Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh
    AU  - Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi
    Y1  - 2016/12/30
    PY  - 2016
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17
    DO  - 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17
    T2  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
    JF  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
    JO  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
    SP  - 85
    EP  - 88
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2328-5672
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17
    AB  - The study adopted a study-test paradigm to investigate whether imagery has a similar effect on prospective memory as it does on retrospective memory. The sample consists of 160 introductory psychology students. The participants were randomly assigned into 2 between groups of imagery: no-imagery and imagery groups. All the participants first studied paired-associate words (List A-B) and were later tested on the paired-associate recall test and sentence construction task. The 2 tests were performed simultaneously. Results of data analyses using the multivariate statistical model showed that memory was better for participants in the imagery group than for participants in the no-imagery group for retrospective memory (p < .001), as well as for prospective memory (p < .001). The obtained effect sizes (ES) of 0.26 and 0.21 for retrospective and prospective memory respectively demonstrate that imagery affects not only retrospective memory, but also prospective memory.
    VL  - 5
    IS  - 6
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

  • Sections