Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery

Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh; Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17

| Peer-Reviewed

Prospective Memory Is (Also) Not Immune to Imagery

Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh, Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi

Published in American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 5, Issue 6)

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

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

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.

Published in	American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 5, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.17
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), 2016. 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” (3^rdedn.). 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.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

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://article.sciencepublishinggroup.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

Author Information

Philip Chukwuemeka Mefoh

Department of Psychology, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
Sampson Kelechi Nwonyi

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

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

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://article.sciencepublishinggroup.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