This study examined value-added intentions by manipulating the cognitive frame associated with monetary contingencies for detecting prospective memory (PM) cues. We associated a loss-frame with a monetary punishment for failing to respond to cues and a gain-frame with a monetary reward for remembering to respond to cues and compared those frames to a no-frame control condition with no contingency linked to performance. Across two experiments, we find increased PM performance for participants in the loss-frame (Experiments 1 and 2) and in the gain-frame (Experiment 2) conditions relative to the no-frame condition. This value-related improvement in PM was not accompanied by a significant increase in cue monitoring as measured by intention-induced interference to an ongoing task and recognition memory for ongoing-task items. The few previous studies investigating motivational PM showed mixed results regarding whether PM improves due to incentives or not. Our results provide further evidence that, under some experimental conditions, PM improves with rewards and that the benefit generalizes to penalizing performance. The results have both practical implications and theoretical implications for motivation models of PM.

No abstract

Does the specific structure of advance organizers influence learning outcomes? In the first experiment, 48 psychology students were randomly assigned to three differently structured advance organizers: a well-structured, a well-structured and key-concept emphasizing, and a less structured advance organizer. These were followed by a sorting task, a text study phase, and a posttest. The results indicated that differently structured advance organizers lead to different proto-schemata before and different learning outcomes after the text study phase. The second experiment replicated and extended these findings with 53 mathematics students. As in experiment 1, three differently structured advance organizers were used; but to rule out alternative explanations, the sorting task between the advance organizer and the text study phase was omitted. The results showed strong beneficial effects of well-structured advance organizers on near and far transfer tasks. Taken together, both experiments support the claim that the structure of advance organizers has an effect on preliminary schemata and learning outcomes. On a general level, the results indicate that advance organizers can support the generation of proto-schemata and thus can be more than the activation of ''existing'' concepts in long-term memory. With regard to education, this implies that educators should not only think about whether prior domainspecific knowledge is present, but also about how to scaffold the generation of protoschemata at the beginning of instruction.

A series of studies examined whether mindfulness is associated with the experience of attitudinal ambivalence. Studies 1A and 1B found that mindful individuals expressed greater comfort holding ambivalent views and reported feeling ambivalent less often.More mindful individuals also responded more positively to feelings of uncertainty (as assessed in Study 1B). Study 2 replicated these effects and demonstrated that mindful individuals had lower objective and subjective ambivalence across a range of attitude objects, but did not differ in attitude valence, extremity, positivity/negativity, strength, or the need to evaluate. Study 3 showed that the link between greater ambivalence and negative affect was buffered by mindfulness, such that there was no link between the amount of ambivalence and negative affect among more mindful individuals. The results are discussed with respect to the benefits of mindfulness in relation to ambivalence and affect. KEYWORDS: MINDFULNESS, ATTITUDES, AMBIVALENCE Mindfulness and ambivalence 3On the attitudinal consequences of being mindful: Links between mindfulness and attitude ambivalenceWe routinely experience mixed reactions to objects in our environment. At a recent coffee shop visit, the lead author was presented with a free sample of cake. He was tornwhile he likes cake, he knows that such an indulgence is unhealthy. He quietly deliberated before giving the cake to his friend. Of course, people frequently experience ambivalent reactions over more substantial objects, including their racial attitudes, their opinions about important social issues, and their own self-esteem (e.g., Haddock & Gebauer, 2011; van Harreveld, van der Plight, & de Liver, 2009b). Furthermore, the experience of ambivalence is usually associated with negative affect (DeMarree, Wheeler, Briñol, & Petty, 2014;Petty, Briñol, & Johnson, 2012;Rydell, McConnell, & Mackie, 2008). In this paper, we consider links between ambivalence and the construct of mindfulness. Specifically, we address whether individual differences in mindfulness are associated with individuals' comfort about holding ambivalent views, how frequently they report ambivalence, and whether mindfulness buffers the link between the experience of ambivalence and negative affect. Integrating Ambivalence and MindfulnessAmbivalence refers to the extent to which an individual has mixed views about an object. The experience of ambivalence is typically associated with negative affect that individuals are motivated to reduce (Petty et al., 2012;Rydell et al., 2008), similar to how dissonance is postulated to invoke arousal (Festinger, 1957). In one interesting study regarding the ambivalence-negative affect link, van Harreveld, Rutjens, Rotteveel, Nordgren, and vanderPligt (2009a) had participants read a message that contained either Mindfulness and ambivalence 4 univalent or ambivalent information. For ambivalence-induced participants, higher skin conductance was found when participants subsequently made a choice about the topic.Mindfulness i...

No abstract