Three experiments were conducted to test the effect of aging on prospective and incidental memory. In the first study, 24 undergraduates (M = 19.71 years) and 17 Elderhostel participants (M = 69.06 years) were used to test three hypotheses: (1) Younger subjects will be superior to older subjects in incidental memory. (2) If older and younger subjects have access to external memory aids, older subjects will display significantly better prospective memory. (3) If these subjects are denied external aids, the younger subjects will exhibit better prospective memory. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were confirmed, but 3 was not. The advantage older subjects display when permitted use of memory aids could derive from better recall of the future task or higher motivation to complete the task once it is recalled. In the second experiment, 51 undergraduates (M = 18.71 years) and 55 older subjects (M = 71.87 years) recruited from a continuing education program were used to test the hypothesis that the advantage older subjects displayed in aided prospective memory over younger ones derives from better recall of the task. The results obtained were not consistent with this interpretation. In the third experiment, 22 undergraduates (M = 18.50 years) and 20 Elderhostel participants (M = 70.25 years) tested the hypothesis that the advantage older subjects enjoy in prospective memory derives from greater motivation to complete the task. This hypothesis was confirmed.

No abstract

Three experiments tested the efficacy of the phonetic mnemonic system under varying conditions of application. The first study attempted unsuccessfully to replicate and extend the work of Morris and Greer (1984), who had shown training in the phonetic mnemonic method to facilitate memorization of a serial list of two-digit numbers. In the present study, subjects trained in the phonetic mnemonic method failed to learn lists of two-, four-, and six-digit numbers better than control subjects. The second experiment partially replicated the first, the differences being that training in the phonetic mnemonic method was strengthened, and time allotted for number recall was extended. Under these circumstances the phonetic mnemonic group recalled the two-, four-, and six-digit numbers significantly better than the control groups, a finding conforming with Morris and Greer's (1984) results. The third experiment partially replicated the second, everything being the same except that, in this case, subjects constructed their own key words representing each number, instead of these words being supplied by the experimenter. Under these conditions, subjects trained in the phonetic mnemonic method recalled significantly fewer numbers than control subjects.The phonetic mnemonic method (Higbee, 1977: 135-151; Lorayne and Lucas, 1974: 83-93) is based on the assumption that words are easier to remember than numbers, and was devised especially to facilitate memorization of numeric material. In this system each of the digits 0-9 is represented by a consonant sound. The consonant sounds are linked together by vowels (which have no numerical value) to produce words, which represent the numbers to be remembered. For example, the word 'man' could represent the number 32 (i.e. rn = 3; the letter a has no numerical value; and n = 2). These words can subsequently be decoded to retrieve the original numbers. Cermak (1976) describes the phonetic mnemonic system as among the most powerful of the mnemonic techniques.Evidence concerning the effectiveness of the phonetic mnemonic method, however, is contradictory. Morris and Greer (1984) demonstrated that use of the phonetic mnemonic method improved retention of a serial list of two-digit numbers; Bruce and Clemons (1982) found that this method did not enhance the ability to remember conversions btween metric and standard measurement units (e.g. 1 kg = 2.2 Ib), and Patton (1986) found that not only did the phonetic mnemonic method fail to improve recall of numbers, dates, street addresses, and telephone numbeis, but that under some conditions this technique actually inhibited recall.The following set of three experiments was designed to resolve differences among previous studies and, in so doing, delineate the conditions under which the phonetic mnemonic method can or cannot be expected to be effective.

Previous studies successfully used the face-name mnemonic to improve recall of fictitious surnames of individuals appearing in photographs. Exps. 1 and 2 tested whether this mnemonic could also aid recall of the actual surnames of real people met during conversations. Exp. 1, like previous studies, showed that the face-name mnemonic facilitated recall of surnames of photographed individuals; however, chis mnemonic reduced name recall following conversations. Exp. 2 refined the procedure used in Exp. 1 by including a control group in the design and strengthening the training procedures for the face-name mnemonic group. The results of Exp. 2 paralleled those of Exp. 1, again showing no advantage to using the face-name mnemonic during conversation. Exp. 3 explored alternatives to the face-name mnemonic, and featured use of self-help mnemonics (those initiated by the learner without help from others) and stranger-provided mnemonics (those provided by the person whose name was being memorized). A combination of self-help and stranger-provided mnemonics produced significantly greater recall of surnames following conversation than that achieved by self-help strategies alone, a control group, or the face-name mnemonic.The face-name mnemonic was devised by Lorayne (1957) to enhance ability to remember last names. As described by Hill, Yesavage, Sheikh, and Friedman (1989), "The face-name mnemonic involves three components: (a) identification of a prominent feature of the person's face (e.g., a wide mouth), (b) derivation of a concrete, high-imagery transformation of the person's name (e.g., the name Whealen becomes a whale), and (c) formation of a visual image associating the prominent feature with the transformed name (a whale in the person's mouth). To recall the name, the participant had to (a) identify the prominent feature of the test face, (b) use that feature as a retrieval cue for the image association, (c) reconstruct the name transformation (whale) from the image association, and (d) decode the name from the transformation (whale means Whealen)" (p. 634).The face-name mnemonic has frequently been used successfully to improve recall of common, fictitious surnames assigned to individuals appearing in photographs (

The hypothesis tested proposed that subjects using the phonetic mnemonic system who were supplied code words by the experimenter would recall more numbers than either subjects generating their own code words or a control group. In Experiment 1,36 undergraduate subjects serving in a 3 x (3) mixed-factorial design confirmed the hypothesis, but the possibility existed that the superiority of the experimenter-supplied group was attributable to the failure of the subject-generated group to devise a complete set of code words. In Experiment 2 a new group of 12 self-generated subjects was tested with a modified procedure designed to maximize number of correct code words. However, the experimenter-supplied group recalled significantly more numbers than this group, too. In Experiment 3 the possibility was tested that the superiority of the experimenter-supplied subjects was an artifact based on insufficient training in the phonetic method of subjects creating code words. Accordingly, all 28 subjects received extended training before recall of a subject-generated group was tested against that of an experimenter-supplied group in a 2 x (2) factorial design. Once again the experimentersupplied group recalled significantly more numbers, confirming the hypothesis. These results represent an exception to the general finding that subject-generated mnemonics are superior to those supplied by the experimenter. The data suggest that the relative efficacy of the two sources interacts with the difficulty of the mnemonic. Patton and Lantzy (1987) found that subjects using the phonetic mnemonic system who were given code words by the experimenter were superior in recall to subjects who had to devise their own code words. This finding runs contrary to the majority of experiments studying the relative efficacy of experimenter-supplied versus subjectgenerated mnemonics. Most (Bellezza