4.3 Article

Age Differences in Strategic Reminder Setting and the Compensatory Role of Metacognition

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 172-185

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/pag0000590

Keywords

aging; prospective memory; cognitive offloading; delayed intentions; metacognition

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [ES/N018621/1]
  2. ESRC [ES/N018621/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The research suggests that older adults have difficulty in remembering delayed intentions and tend to be overconfident in their memory abilities. Even when allowed to use reminder strategies, they were unable to fully compensate for their impaired performance.
Previous research has shown that older adults can have difficulty remembering to fulfill delayed intentions. In the present study, we explored whether age differences in prospective memory are affected when participants are permitted to set reminders to help them remember. Furthermore, we examined whether metacognition can influence the use of such strategies and help older adults compensate for age-related memory decline. In this pre-registered study (N = 88) we administered a computerized task requiring a sample of older (aged 65-84) and younger (aged 18-30) participants to remember delayed intentions for a brief period, manipulating the possibility of setting reminders to create an external cue. Performance of the older group was significantly poorer than the younger group. Moreover, older adults were overconfident in their memory abilities and did not fully compensate for impaired performance, even when strategic reminder setting was permitted. These findings suggest that older adults possess limited metacognitive knowledge about their prospective memory limits and may not fully utilize cognitive offloading strategies to compensate for memory decline.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available