ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2025
Great expectations: Anticipating a reminder influences prospective memory encoding and unaided retrieval.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Let it go: How trusted reminders alter intention maintenance.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Individual differences in prospective and retrospective memory offloading.Journal of memory and language · 2025Article
- Reminders eliminate age-related declines in prospective memory.Psychology and aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research in the retrospective memory domain has shown that individuals encode information less effortfully when expecting a reminder system (i.e., external store) to be available at the test. Critically, this expectation leads to worse memory performance when the reminder is unexpectedly removed. The present study examined whether these findings extend to prospective memory (PM) intentions, which are thought to maintain a privileged status in memory and therefore may be less sensitive to expectancy effects. Participants formed the intention to make a special PM response to target items across four ongoing task blocks. Study duration (Experiments 1 and 3), pupil size (Experiment 2), and self-report (Experiments 1-3) indexed encoding effort while learning these targets. Participants had reminders available across the first three blocks (i.e., targets listed at the top of the screen), but not on the fourth. Critically, only one condition was informed that they would not have a reminder prior to encoding targets in the fourth block. Results showed that expecting a reminder lowered objective (Experiments 1 and 3) and subjective (Experiments 1-3) encoding effort and reduced unaided PM retrieval (Experiments 1-3) in the fourth block, independent of memory load (Experiments 3). Objective (Experiments 1 and 3) and subjective (Experiments 1-3) effort also partially mediated the influence of expectations on unaided PM retrieval. These findings suggest PM and retrospective memory encoding operate similarly and that participants can alter learning to more effectively commit PM targets to memory when reminders are not expected. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.