Name: Nicole Brown

Article Review Outline

Reference:
Bugg, J.M. & Scullin, M.K. (2013). Failing to forget: Prospective memory commission errors
can result from spontaneous retrieval and impaired executive control. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 965-971. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029198

Purpose of the study:

There are not a lot of studies about commission errors in regards to prospective memory.
Because of this, the researchers conducted an experiment in regards to three different views
about commission errors and PM. The monitoring view suggests that preparatory methods are
needed to maintain the intention of prospective memory. It further suggests that if the monitoring
continues even after the intention is complete, there should be a failure in the PM forgetting,
meaning that one shouldn’t make a commission error. The residual activation view suggests that
it depends on the level of activation and, like the monitoring view, if a person used preparatory
monitoring. The spontaneous retrieval view suggests that commission errors may be the result of
the strength of the PM cue after an intention is completed. They also want to examine if finished
intention can deactivate so that commission errors will not occur, and the role executive control
has in PM.

Hypothesis(es):
By replicating Scullin et al.’s (2012) experiment, the researches hypotheses were in
accordance to the different views. According to the spontaneous retrieval view, if there is no
monitoring of PM, commission errors can occur. The residual activation view, on the other hand,
hypothesizes that no monitoring will only have a minimal effect on commission errors, and
rather, commission errors correlate with degree of monitoring.

Methods (Materials/Procedure):
There were three different groups in this experiment: no PM control group, short-delay
group, and long-delay group. The procedure included a salient-cue and task-match condition.
During a lexical decision task, the participants had to respond by pressing a button, indicating
whether the string of letters formed a word or not. For the experimental groups, if the words
‘fish/writer’ or ‘corn/dancer’ on a blue or red background, they needed to press the letter ‘Q’.
During the delay interval, the participants completed a demographic questionnaire and completed
a vocabulary test. The active PM block consisted of an 80-trial lexical decision task. The delay
groups then received a message indicating that they no longer were required to press the ‘Q’
button. The groups continued to perform a short lexical decision task where the target words did
not appear, and complete another vocabulary test. Participants then partook in the finished-PM
block which consisted of a 260-trial lexical decision task. For the short-delay group, the PM cue
appeared on the 40th trial; 258th trial for the long-delay group. Upon completion, the participants
then filled out a questionnaire about certain aspects of the experiment.
Name: Nicole Brown

The independent variable in this experiment was the presentation, whether or not the PM
cue appeared (fish/writer, corn/dancer). The dependent variables were the amount of responses
that were correct, which was indicated by pressing the ‘Q,’ and reaction time.

Major findings:
The results found that PM hits were not statistically significant between short- and long-
delay groups. In the short-delay group, there was no association between reaction time and
commission errors, but that there was an association in the long-delay group. Since there was no
significance between false alarms (accidently pressing ‘Q’ when they’re not supposed to) and
commission errors, they came to the conclusion that commission errors are not synonymous with
misunderstandings.
For the earlier trials, there wasn’t a significant difference in reaction time between
participants who made commission errors and participants who did not. Of the participants,
roughly 25% made commission errors, specifically in the finished-PM block. Overall, they found
that the spontaneous retrieval view was the most accurate view.

Implications of findings:
Commission errors may still occur even if the task has already been completed. The
results suggest that this could be due to spontaneous retrievals and failure to use executive
control. These findings are important because of how they relate to peoples’ everyday lives. As
mentioned at the beginning of the article, commission errors can result in embarrassment or
confusion for many people. Having an understanding about how this memory works and how
commission errors may come about can at least give people knowledge about how and why it
occurs, and could perhaps better prepare us for the possibilities in the future. What is also
important is the factor of fatigue in this case. Fatigue has tendency to worsen performance, so in
regards to students who work and/or attend classes, they may be more susceptible to fall victim
to commission errors. While there is no “cure” for commission errors, perhaps there could at
least be precautions or strategies for students so they can have a more accurate memory.

Possible future directions:

Because there were concerns in the experiment about participants being fatigued, perhaps
another study could be conducted that would involve more interaction from the participants,
rather than just having them look at words on a screen and press a button. Also, to see how
commission errors and prospective memory affects every day lives and activities, researches
could conduct an experiment that involved ‘real life’ situations. For instance, a study could be
conducted that requires participants to do various task; such as, copying or faxing papers, making
business phone calls to everyone on a list, typing up a test for one of the faculty members, etc.
What the experimenters could then do, after letting the participant begin the various tasks, is set
up distractors; have a coworker strike up a conversation, have maintenance workers come and fix
a broken light in the same area as the participant, etc. We would then be able to see how these
distractors affect prospective memory and if they may influence commission errors. Also, by
making the participants do every day activities, it could be more be convenient to see how PM
and commission errors are applicable to real life scenarios.