Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions

young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory

Stéphanie Cauvin (Corresponding Author), Christopher Moulin, Céline Souchay, Katharina Schnitzspahn, Matthias Kliegel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This study investigated whether individuals can predict their future prospective memory (PM) performance in a lab-based task and in a naturalistic task. Metacognitive awareness was assessed by asking participants to give judgments-of-learning (JOLs) on an item-level for the prospective (that something has to be done) and retrospective (what to do) PM component. In addition, to explore whether giving predictions influences PM performance, we compared a control group (without predictions) to a prediction group. Results revealed that giving predictions did not change PM performance. Moreover, participants were underconfident in their PM performance in the lab-based task, while they were overconfident in the naturalistic task. In addition, item-level JOLs indicated that they were inaccurate in predicting what items they will recall or not, but only for the prospective component of the PM task. As for the retrospective component, they were equally accurate in both task settings. This study suggests a dissociation of metacognitive awareness for PM according to both task setting and processing component.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)592-602
Number of pages11
JournalMemory
Volume27
Issue number5
Early online date5 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Episodic Memory
Young Adult
Learning
Prospective Memory
Young Adults
Prediction
Control Groups

Keywords

  • prospective memory
  • metacognition
  • judgement-of-learning

Cite this

Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions : young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory. / Cauvin, Stéphanie (Corresponding Author); Moulin, Christopher; Souchay, Céline ; Schnitzspahn, Katharina; Kliegel, Matthias.

In: Memory , Vol. 27, No. 5, 2019, p. 592-602.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cauvin, Stéphanie ; Moulin, Christopher ; Souchay, Céline ; Schnitzspahn, Katharina ; Kliegel, Matthias. / Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions : young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory. In: Memory . 2019 ; Vol. 27, No. 5. pp. 592-602.
@article{b0567f2ea97b474892fd6e9b586d28c8,
title = "Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions: young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory",
abstract = "This study investigated whether individuals can predict their future prospective memory (PM) performance in a lab-based task and in a naturalistic task. Metacognitive awareness was assessed by asking participants to give judgments-of-learning (JOLs) on an item-level for the prospective (that something has to be done) and retrospective (what to do) PM component. In addition, to explore whether giving predictions influences PM performance, we compared a control group (without predictions) to a prediction group. Results revealed that giving predictions did not change PM performance. Moreover, participants were underconfident in their PM performance in the lab-based task, while they were overconfident in the naturalistic task. In addition, item-level JOLs indicated that they were inaccurate in predicting what items they will recall or not, but only for the prospective component of the PM task. As for the retrospective component, they were equally accurate in both task settings. This study suggests a dissociation of metacognitive awareness for PM according to both task setting and processing component.",
keywords = "prospective memory, metacognition, judgement-of-learning",
author = "St{\'e}phanie Cauvin and Christopher Moulin and C{\'e}line Souchay and Katharina Schnitzspahn and Matthias Kliegel",
note = "We thank Mathilde Bastien, Alexandre Caddoux, Asli Erdemli and Vanessa Marti for assistance with data collection. Preparation of this manuscript was funded by a joint grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Agence Nationale de Recherche (ANR; France) to MK, CM, KS and CS. CM gratefully acknowledges the support of the Institut Universitaire de France. The authors report no conflicts of interest.",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/09658211.2018.1540703",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "592--602",
journal = "Memory",
issn = "0965-8211",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions

T2 - young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory

AU - Cauvin, Stéphanie

AU - Moulin, Christopher

AU - Souchay, Céline

AU - Schnitzspahn, Katharina

AU - Kliegel, Matthias

N1 - We thank Mathilde Bastien, Alexandre Caddoux, Asli Erdemli and Vanessa Marti for assistance with data collection. Preparation of this manuscript was funded by a joint grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Agence Nationale de Recherche (ANR; France) to MK, CM, KS and CS. CM gratefully acknowledges the support of the Institut Universitaire de France. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - This study investigated whether individuals can predict their future prospective memory (PM) performance in a lab-based task and in a naturalistic task. Metacognitive awareness was assessed by asking participants to give judgments-of-learning (JOLs) on an item-level for the prospective (that something has to be done) and retrospective (what to do) PM component. In addition, to explore whether giving predictions influences PM performance, we compared a control group (without predictions) to a prediction group. Results revealed that giving predictions did not change PM performance. Moreover, participants were underconfident in their PM performance in the lab-based task, while they were overconfident in the naturalistic task. In addition, item-level JOLs indicated that they were inaccurate in predicting what items they will recall or not, but only for the prospective component of the PM task. As for the retrospective component, they were equally accurate in both task settings. This study suggests a dissociation of metacognitive awareness for PM according to both task setting and processing component.

AB - This study investigated whether individuals can predict their future prospective memory (PM) performance in a lab-based task and in a naturalistic task. Metacognitive awareness was assessed by asking participants to give judgments-of-learning (JOLs) on an item-level for the prospective (that something has to be done) and retrospective (what to do) PM component. In addition, to explore whether giving predictions influences PM performance, we compared a control group (without predictions) to a prediction group. Results revealed that giving predictions did not change PM performance. Moreover, participants were underconfident in their PM performance in the lab-based task, while they were overconfident in the naturalistic task. In addition, item-level JOLs indicated that they were inaccurate in predicting what items they will recall or not, but only for the prospective component of the PM task. As for the retrospective component, they were equally accurate in both task settings. This study suggests a dissociation of metacognitive awareness for PM according to both task setting and processing component.

KW - prospective memory

KW - metacognition

KW - judgement-of-learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056177158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/laboratory-vs-naturalistic-prospective-memory-task-predictions-young-adults-overconfident-outside-la

U2 - 10.1080/09658211.2018.1540703

DO - 10.1080/09658211.2018.1540703

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 592

EP - 602

JO - Memory

JF - Memory

SN - 0965-8211

IS - 5

ER -