Prospective memory is remembering to perform an action in the future. The authors introduce the 1st formal model of event-based prospective memory, namely, a multinomial model that includes 2 separate parameters related to prospective memory processes. The 1st measures preparatory attentional processes, and the 2nd measures retrospective memory processes. The model was validated in 4 experiments. Manipulations of instructions to place importance on either the prospective memory task or the background task (Experiments 1 and 2) and manipulations of distinctiveness of prospective memory targets (Experiment 2) had expected effects on model parameters, as did a manipulation of the difficulty of prospective memory target encoding (Experiments 3 and 4). An alternative model was also evaluated.

Source monitoring refers to the discrimination of the origin of information. Multinomial models of source monitoring (W. H. Batchelder & D. M. Riefer, 1990) are theories of the decision processes involved in source monitoring that provide separate parameters for source discrimination, item detection, and response biases. Three multinomial models of source monitoring based on different models of decision in a simple detection paradigm (one-high-threshold, low-threshold, and two-high-threshold models) were subjected to empirical tests. With a 3 (distractor similarity) x 3 (source similarity) factorial design, the effect of difficulty of item detection and source discrimination on corresponding model parameters was examined. Only the source-monitoring model that is based on a two-high-threshold model of item recognition provides an accurate analysis of the data. Consequences for the use of multinomial models in the study of source monitoring are discussed.Source monitoring refers to the discrimination of the origin of information. In the typical source-monitoring task, items of information are presented from two or more sources and the correct mapping between source and item of information must be remembered at a later time. Trying to remember which journal this article appeared in several months from now is an example. Over the last 15 years, experimental paradigms using source-monitoring tasks have gained increasing popularity in many fields of psychology including basic and applied memory research, psycholinguistics, social psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, and neuropsychology. Source-monitoring paradigms have been used to address questions regarding eyewitness testimony (

Source monitoring refers to mental processes leading to attributions regarding the origin of information. We tested Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay's (1993) assumption that prior source-relevant knowledge is used in some source-monitoring tasks. In two experiments using different domains of schematic knowledge, two sources presented information that was expected for one source and somewhat unexpected for the other. In a later source-monitoring test, participants decided whether items had been presented by Source A,by Source B, or were new. The results of both experiments show that source identification is better for expected items than for somewhat unexpected items. Multinomial modeling analyses revealed that when participants do not remember the source of information, they guess that it was presented by the expected source. These results provide evidence for the claim that source monitoring can be based on prior knowledge and support a guessing hypothesis.

The PAM theory of event-based prospective memory (Smith, 2003; Smith & Bayen, 2004a) proposes that successful prospective memory performance demands upon the interaction of preparatory attentional processes and retrospective memory processes. The two experiments in the current study represent the first application of a formal model to investigate the sensitivity of these underlying processes to variations in working memory resource availability. Multinomial modeling of data from prospective-memory tasks showed that working memory span influenced preparatory attentional processes and retrospective-memory processes.

The authors investigated conditions under which judgments in source-monitoring tasks are influenced by prior schematic knowledge. According to a probability-matching account of source guessing (Spaniol & Bayen, 2002), when people do not remember the source of information, they match source guessing probabilities to the perceived contingency between sources and item types. When they do not have a representation of a contingency, they base their guesses on prior schematic knowledge. The authors provide support for this account in two experiments with sources presenting information that was expected for one source and somewhat unexpected for another. Schema-relevant information about the sources was provided at the time of encoding. When contingency perception was impeded by dividing attention, participants showed schema-based guessing (Experiment 1). Manipulating source - item contingency also affected guessing (Experiment 2). When this contingency was schema-inconsistent, it superseded schema-based expectations and led to schema-inconsistent guessing.

Event-based prospective memory involves remembering to perform an action in response to a particular future event. Normal younger and older adults performed event-based prospective memory tasks in 2 experiments. The authors applied a formal multinomial processing tree model of prospective memory (Smith & Bayen, 2004) to disentangle age differences in the prospective component (remembering that you have to do something) and the retrospective component (remembering when to perform the action) of prospective memory performance. The modeling results, as well as more traditional analyses, indicate age differences in the resource-demanding prospective component.

Source monitoring involves judgments regarding the origin of information (M. K. Johnson, S. Hashtroudi, & D. S. Lindsay, 1993). When participants cannot remember the source in a source-monitoring task, they may guess according to their prior schematic knowledge (U. J. Bayen, G. V. Nakamura, S. E. Dupuis, & C.-L. Yang, 2000). The present study aimed at specifying conditions under which schematic knowledge is used in source monitoring. The authors examined the time course of schema-based guesses with a response-signal technique (A. V. Reed, 1973), and multinomial models that separate memory and guessing bias. Use of schematic knowledge was observed only when asymptotic old-new recognition was low. The time course of schematic-knowledge retrieval followed an exponential growth function. Implications for theories of source monitoring are discussed.

Source monitoring involves attributing information to one of several sources. Schemas are known to influence source-monitoring processes, with enhanced memory for schematically unexpected sources (inconsistency effect) and biased schema-consistent source guessing. The authors investigated whether this guessing bias reflects a compensatory guessing strategy based on metacognitive awareness of the inconsistency effect, or reflects other strategies as proposed by the probability-matching account. To determine people's awareness of the inconsistency effect, the authors investigated metamemory predictions in a source-monitoring task. In four experiments, participants studied object word items that were presented with one of two scene labels as sources. Items were either presented with their schematically expected source (e.g., kitchen-oven) or with their schematically unexpected source (e.g., kitchen-toothpaste). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants predicted their item memory and their source memory after each source-item presentation. In Experiment 1, people incorrectly predicted both their item memory and, even more so, their source memory to be better for expected than for unexpected source-item pairs. In Experiment 2, this effect replicated with different types of judgment probes. Crucially, item-wise memory predictions did not predict source guessing. In Experiment 3, metacognitive awareness of the inconsistency effect on source memory changed during the test phase. However, metamemory convictions never predicted source guessing. In Experiment 4, the authors manipulated participants' convictions concerning the impact of schematic expectations on source memory. These convictions also did not predict source guessing. Thus, the results show that schema-consistent source guessing does not reflect a compensatory strategy. (PsycINFO Database Record