4.1 Article

Personality predicts prospective memory task performance: An adult lifespan study

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 215-231

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00570.x

Keywords

prospective memory; personality; lifestyle; age; cognitive ability; retrospective memory; executive functions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Do interindividual differences in prospective memory task performance reflect individual differences in personality and lifestyle? Do the cognitive abilities known to change with age retain their power to predict episodic prospective memory task performance after controlling for personality and lifestyle variables, and do personality and lifestyle variables offer predictive power apart from that provided by cognitive ability measures? To answer these questions, we conducted a study with community-living healthy individuals (n = 141) between 18 and 81 years of age. They completed three different episodic prospective memory tasks - two laboratory tasks and one field task - as well as various measures of personality, lifestyle, and cognitive ability. The results indicated that personality and lifestyle reliably predicted who will succeed and who will fail on all three episodic prospective memory tasks. Conscientiousness predicted performance on two of the prospective memory tasks; socially prescribed perfectionism and neuroticism each predicted performance on one of the prospective memory tasks. Cognitive ability predicted performance on one of the laboratory prospective memory tasks but not on the other two prospective memory tasks. After we controlled for individual differences in personality and lifestyle variables, cognitive ability was no longer able to predict performance on the laboratory prospective memory task. By contrast, controlling for cognitive ability had no influence on the predictive power of the personality and lifestyle variables.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available