Search

The present study examined individual differences in 3 cognitive abilities: attention control (AC), working memory capacity (WMC), and fluid intelligence (gF) as they relate the tendency to experience task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) and the regulation of arousal. Cognitive abilities were measured with a battery of 9 laboratory tasks, TUTs were measured via thought probes inserted into 2 tasks, and arousal regulation was measured via pupillometry. Recent theorizing (Unsworth & Robison, 2017b) suggests that 1 reason why some people experience relatively frequent TUTs and relatively poor cognitive performance--especially AC and WMC--is that they exhibit dysregulated arousal. Here, we examined how arousal regulation might predict both AC and WMC, but also higher-order cognitive abilities like gF. Further, we examine direct and indirect associations with these abilities via a mediating influence of TUT. Participants who reported more TUTs also tended to exhibit poorer AC, lower WMC, and lower gF. Arousal dysregulation correlated with more TUTs and lower AC. However, there was no direct correlation between arousal regulation and WMC, nor between arousal regulation and gF. The association between arousal regulation and gF was indirect via TUT. We discuss the implications of the results in light of the arousal regulation theory of individual differences and directions for future research.

Research suggests that forcing participants to withhold responding for as brief as 600 ms eliminates one of the most reliable findings in prospective memory (PM): the cue focality effect. This result undermines the conventional view that controlled attentional monitoring processes support PM, and instead suggests that cue detection results from increased response thresholds that allow more time for PM information to accumulate. Given the significance of such findings, it is critical to examine the generalizability of the delay mechanism. Experiments 1-4 examined boundary conditions of the delay theory of PM, whereas Experiment 5 more directly tested contrasting theoretical predictions from monitoring theory (e.g., multiprocess framework) and delay theory. Using the same (Experiment 1) or conceptually similar (Experiment 2) delay procedure and identical cues (nonfocal "tor" intention) from the original study failed to show any influence of delay on performance. Using a different nonfocal intention (first letter "S") similarly did not influence performance (Experiment 3), and the difference between focal and nonfocal cue detection was never completely eliminated even with delays as long as 2,500 ms (Experiment 4). Experiment 5 did find the anticipated reduction in the focality effect with increased delays with a larger sample (n = 249). However, the focality effect was not moderated by attention control ability despite the fact that participants with impoverished attention control should benefit most from the delay procedure. These results suggest that any theory of PM that considers only a delay mechanism may not fully capture the dynamic attention processes that support cue detection.

The present study implemented an individual differences approach in conjunction with response time (RT) variability and distribution modeling techniques to better characterize the cognitive control dynamics underlying ongoing task cost (i.e., slowing) and cue detection in event-based prospective memory (PM). Three experiments assessed the relation between proactive control ability, ex-Gaussian parameter estimates (µ and t), intraindividual variability in responding (coefficient of variation, CoV), and PM cue detection. Experiment 1 examined these relations using a standard nonfocal PM paradigm. Experiments 2 and 3 further assessed how PM importance and PM cue focality, respectively, influenced performance. Across all experiments, nonfocal PM was associated with increases in all cost measures, but only µ reliably predicted cue detection. Importance instructions and focal PM cues selectively increased and decreased µ cost, respectively, relative to the standard nonfocal condition. These findings suggest that µ cost may reflect a target-checking process that benefits cue detection and produces slowing throughout the entire ongoing task. Additionally, across all experiments proactive control was positively associated with µ cost and cue detection, and generally negatively associated with variability cost (t and CoV). These findings suggest that natural variation in proactive control ability may affect reliance on more efficacious monitoring processes that facilitates cue detection. Furthermore, variability in responding may have little influence on successful PM. The results from the current study highlight the utility of RT variability and distribution analyses in understanding PM costs and have important implications for extant theories of PM concerning the cognitive control processes underlying cue detection.

Targeting information in long-term memory is an important cognitive ability, but one that is not well understood. In this study, 4 experiments were conducted to examine the influence of proactive and retroactive interference on memory targeting. Participants were given either 1 or 2 lists and asked to recall List 1, List 2, or in some cases both lists. Multiple dependent measures were explored including the proportion of items recalled, number of intrusions output, and recall latency to arbitrate between 4 extant accounts of memory targeting. In general, recalling either List 1 or List 2 resulted in lower probability of recall, recall of more intrusions, and longer recall latencies compared to when recalling a list alone, suggesting both proactive and retroactive interference. These results suggest that long-term memory targeting is guided by noisy temporal-contextual cues (unless other salient cues are present) that activate both relevant and irrelevant memoranda that are then subjected to a postretrieval monitoring process.

The present study examined individual differences in everyday attention failures. Undergraduate students completed various cognitive ability measures in the laboratory and recorded everyday attention failures in a diary over the course of a week. The majority of attention failures were failures of distraction or mind wandering in educational contexts (in class or while studying). Latent variable techniques were used to perform analyses, and the results suggested that individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control were related to some but not all everyday attention failures. Furthermore, everyday attention failures predicted SAT scores and partially accounted for the relation between cognitive abilities and SAT scores. These results provide important evidence for individual differences in everyday attention failures as well as for the ecological validity of laboratory measures of working memory capacity and attention control. (Contains 3 tables, 3 figures, and 2 footnotes.)

The present study examined individual differences in everyday cognitive failures assessed by diaries. A large sample of participants completed various cognitive ability measures in the laboratory. Furthermore, a subset of these participants also recorded everyday cognitive failures (attention, retrospective memory, and prospective memory failures) in a diary over the course of a week. Using latent variable techniques the results suggested that individual differences in cognitive abilities (i.e., working memory, attention control, retrospective memory, and prospective memory) were related to individual differences in everyday cognitive failures. Furthermore, everyday cognitive failures predicted SAT scores and partially accounted for the relation between cognitive abilities and SAT scores. These results provide important evidence for individual differences in everyday cognitive failures as well as important evidence for the ecological validity of laboratory cognitive ability measures. (Contains 6 tables and 6 figures.)

Five experiments were conducted to examine how unsuccessful retrieval influences learning and subsequent memory. We used a cued-recall paradigm that produces many unsuccessful retrieval attempts (followed by feedback) and allows comparisons to be made between later memory for these trials and trials that only required reading or studying the pairs. On "read" trials participants studied cue-target pairs that were either weakly associated (DOOR-EXIT) or unrelated but identical in length (DOOR-SHOE). On "test" trials participants were given only the cue (either without [Exps. 1-3] or with [Exps. 4-5] prior experience with the pair items) and asked to guess the target which they were told was either semantically related or identical in length to the cue; then they received the correct cue-target pair to study. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts (i.e., guessing) relative to studying benefited retention for weakly associated pairs but impaired retention for unrelated pairs. This pattern of results occurred regardless of study duration (Experiments 1A and 1B), level of processing of the cue (Experiment 2), whether relatedness was manipulated between or within subjects (Experiment 5), and when guessing involved episodic as opposed to semantic retrieval (Experiments 4 and 5). However, this pattern was partly mediated by the ability to retrieve incorrect guesses during a final cued-recall test which may provide a link between the cue and target (Experiment 3). The current study demonstrates that unsuccessful retrieval attempts with immediate feedback not only enhance, but also can impair learning. This effect is robust and depends on elaborative semantic activation related to the answer and the effectiveness of incorrect guesses as mediating cues. (Contains 2 tables and 5 figures.)

The current study examined individual differences in the effects of retrieval from long-term memory (i.e., the testing effect). The effects of retrieving from memory make tested information more accessible for future retrieval attempts. Despite the broad applied ramifications of such a potent memorization technique there is a paucity of research tailored toward scrutinizing variability in the effect. Multiple measures of working memory capacity, attention control, episodic memory, and general-fluid intelligence were collected in addition to performance in a standard paired-associate testing task. A testing effect was observed and there was a great deal of individual variability in the magnitude of the effect. This variability was best accounted for by memory and intelligence constructs. Furthermore, the pattern of results is consistent with the notion that students with poor memory abilities and lower general-fluid intelligence benefit more so from testing memory than high ability students. (Contains 2 figures and 4 tables.)

Retrieval dynamics in context-dependent recall were explored via manipulations of external and internal context in two experiments. Participants were tested in either the same or different context as the material was learned in and correct recalls, errors, and recall latency measures were examined. In both experiments changes in context resulted in fewer correct items being recalled than when context remained the same. However, the context change manipulation did not affect the number or type of recall errors or recall latency in either experiment. These results are consistent with the notion that changes in context result in a reduction in the associative strengths of items because there are fewer overlapping contextual features between encoded features and features present at test. Other potential mechanisms of context-dependent recall effects are discussed. (Contains 6 figures and 2 tables.)