Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Interrupting intentions: Zeigarnik-like effects in prospective memory

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined the effects of task interruption on memory for intentions. Participants studied a series of anagrams, of which they solved one-half (Exp. 1) or two-thirds (Exp. 2), whereas the solution of the remaining items was interrupted by the experimenter. Furthermore, four anagrams (prospective cue items) differed from the remaining anagrams in that the third letter of each item was underlined. Participants were instructed to decide whether a subsequently presented (target) anagram contained the same or a different third letter as the underlined letter of the cue item. The results of both experiments showed Zeigarnik-like effects in prospective memory, so that cue items that were associated with interruption in the anagram task were better reminders than were items that were associated with completion. These findings suggest that interruption of an ongoing activity facilitates subsequent prospective memory performance, possibly by increasing the level of activation of the underlying intention representation that, in turn, increases the individual's sensitivity to identify the target event.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1963). A Zeigarnik-like effect in the recall of anagram solutions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 63–64.

  2. van Bergen, A. (1968). Task interruption. Amsterdam: North Holland.

  3. Birenbaum, G. (1930). Das Vergessen einer Vornahme. Psychologische Forschung, 13, 218–284.

  4. Brandimonte, M. A., & Passolunghi, M. C. (1994). The effect of cue familiarity, cue-distinctiveness, and retention interval on prospective remembering. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 565–587.

  5. Butterfield, E. C. (1964). The interruption task. Methodological, factual, and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 309–322.

  6. Craik, F. I. M. (1983). On the transfer of information from temporary to permanent storage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London, 302, 341–359.

  7. Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory (H. Ruyer & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Teacher's College, Columbia University. (Original work published 1885)

  8. Einstein. G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717–726.

  9. Einstein, G. O., Holland, L. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Guynn, M. J. (1992). Age-related deficits in prospective memory: The influence of task complexity. Psychology and Aging, 7, 471–478.

  10. Ellis, J. A., & Milne, W. (1992). The effects of retrieval cue specificity on prospective memory performance. Unpublished manuscript. University of Wales, College of Cardiff, Cardiff, U.K.

  11. Freud, S. (1901). The psychopathology of everyday life. London: Hogarth Press.

  12. Fulgosi, A., & Guilford, J. P. (1968). Short-term incubation in divergent production. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 241–246.

  13. Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211–1226.

  14. Harris, J. E. (1980). Memory aids people use: Two interview studies. Memory & Cognition, 8, 31–38.

  15. Harris, J. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (1982). Remembering to do things: A theoretical framework and an illustrative experiment. Human Learning, 1, 123–136.

  16. Hunt, R. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 421–445.

  17. Hunter, M. L. (1963). The solving of five-letter anagram problems. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 193–206

  18. Intons-Peterson, M. J., & Fournier, J. (1986). External and internal memory aids: How often we use them. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 267–280.

  19. Jacoby, L. L., & Craik, F. I. M. (1979). Effects of elaboration of processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of initial context. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Level of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.

  20. Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H., & Nussbaum, A. (1990). Encoding information for future actions: Memory for to be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks. Memory & Cognition, 18, 568–578.

  21. Kvavilashvili, L. (1987). Remembering intention as a distinct form of memory. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 507.

  22. Lewin, K. (1961). Intention, will, and need. In T. Shipley, (Ed. and Trans.), Classics in psychology (pp. 1234–1288). New York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1926)

  23. Mäntylä T. (1986). Optimizing cue effectiveness: Recall of 500 and 600 incidentally learned words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 66–71.

  24. Mäntylä, T. (1993). Printing effects in prospective memory. Memory, 1, 203–218.

  25. Mäntylä, T. (1994). Remembering to remember: Adult age differences in prospective memory. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 276–282.

  26. Mäntylä, T. (1995). Activating actions and interrupting intentions: Mechanisms of retrieval sensitization in prospective memory. In A. Brandimonte, G. Einstein, & M. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 93–113). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.

  27. Maylor, E. A. (1990). Age and prospective memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 471–493.

  28. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1992). Aging and prospective memory: Basic findings and practical applications. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 7, 87–105.

  29. McDaniel, M., & Einstein, G. O. (1993). Relations between prospective and retrospective memory: The importance of cue-familiarity and cue-distinctiveness. Memory, 1, 23–42.

  30. Meacham, J. A., & Colombo, J. A. (1980). External retrieval cues facilitate prospective remembering. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 299–301.

  31. Meacham, J. A., & Singer, J. (1997). Incentive effects in prospective remembering. Journal of Psychology, 97, 191–197.

  32. Ovsiankina, M. (1928). Die Wiederaufnahme unterbrochener Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 11, 302–379.

  33. Patalano, A, L., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Memory for impasses during problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 22, 234–242.

  34. Salaman, E. (1970). A collection of moments. London: Longman.

  35. Yaniv, I., & Meyer, D. E. (1987). Activation and metacognition of inaccessible information: Potential bases for incubation effects in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 187–205.

  36. Zeigarnik, B. (1927). Über das Behalten von erledigten und underledigten Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1–85.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to T. Mäntylä.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mäntylä, T., Sgaramella, T. Interrupting intentions: Zeigarnik-like effects in prospective memory. Psychol. Res 60, 192–199 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419767

Download citation

Keywords

  • Memory Performance
  • Prospective Memory
  • Target Event
  • Ongoing Activity
  • Good Reminder