Disentangling the age PM paradox

To summarize, there is evidence that individual and age-related differences in PM are not entirely accounted for by cognitive abilities. To answer the question which other variables are involved in prospective remembering, several non-cognitive factors were identified and discussed. However, the remaining question is why we can observe that older adults perform even better in naturalistic PM tasks while we find robust PM age deficits in the laboratory. In other words, how can we explain the paradoxical reversal of PM age effects in the field? To answer this question, we have to consider four fundamental things: first, successful PM in the naturalistic setting requires processes similar to those in laboratory PM; second, a variety of cognitive and non-cognitive factors is involved in prospective remembering; third, all these factors act together; and fourth, certain features of the task and the setting determine the individual impact of these factors in their interplay during the process of prospective remembering.

In terms of the age PM paradox, this would mean that although all factors can be potentially involved in both settings, some factors have a greater impact on age differences in the laboratory while others have a greater impact in the field. Specifically, in laboratory PM tasks, the demand on cognitive functions is relatively large (Kliegel et al., 2011). The implemented background activities often place a high demand on processing resources and other cognitive abilities. This is especially unfavorable for older adults (see Study 2, Chapter 5) as the required cognitive abilities decline with age. In addition, the applied tasks often require a fast processing and the time to relax during the task (or during the testing procedure) is relatively short. Hence, older adults may not be able to continuously “refresh” their

cognitive resources. Furthermore, certain characteristics of the testing situation per se (such as the time of testing in the afternoon or particular test instructions that emphasize difficult task features) are unfavorable for older adults (see Sindi et al., 2013, for an overview). Older adults’ lower experience with cognitive testing procedures likely evokes stress which could

detrimentally affect their cognitive performance (Sindi et al., 2013). Other factors in the testing procedure such as age stereotype threat could be further detrimental for older adults (Mazerolle et al., 2012). Moreover, it is suggested that PM tasks in the laboratory may be little motivating for older adults (see Phillips et al., 2008, for an overview). Due to the usually highly standardized testing procedure in the laboratory, the use of real-world experience and of compensatory strategies (for example during the planning phase, the use of reminders, or rescheduling of intentions) is rather limited (or even impossible) and the influence of

personality traits (such as conscientiousness) seems rather small. In sum, these circumstances are particularly unfavorable for older adults and all in all, this causes that, compared to younger adults, older adults show a lower PM performance in the laboratory (see Sections 7.2.4.1 to 7.2.4.3, for a more detailed illustration of these underlying mechanisms).

In contrast, concerning the naturalistic setting, it is suggested that the level of motivation of younger participants to complete PM tasks among the other demands of everyday life may be relatively low. Younger adults have more everyday activities and plans what causes detrimental stress. In comparison, it is assumed that older adults may be more motivated to successfully complete PM tasks that are implemented in their everyday life (see Phillips et al., 2008, for an overview). Older adults are more conscientious, which is

beneficial for accurate intention realization (Cuttler & Graf, 2007). Furthermore, older adults can use their larger real-world experience and compensatory strategies (for example during the planning phase, the use of reminders, or rescheduling of intentions) as there is larger flexibility in everyday life. Rescheduling of intentions can be helpful to minimize everyday stress and to focus on the most important plans (see Study 1, Chapter 4). Moreover, a good planning and the use of reminders can help to compensate age deficits in cognitive abilities.

For example, the fulfillment can be scheduled to be at an optimal time of day (e.g., in the morning) and an alarm or friend could cue the realization. In addition, due to the larger flexibility in the field, the demand on cognitive functions can be reduced if necessary. For

example, older adults can take a break during their everyday activities to relax and refresh their cognitive resources. Older adults likely have more experience with real-world intention realization. They know well about their everyday PM performance and hence may be less vulnerable to effects of age stereotype threat. All in all, these circumstances are particularly beneficial for older adults and in sum, this causes that, compared to younger adults, older adults can show a better PM performance in the naturalistic setting (see Sections 7.2.4.1 to 7.2.4.3, for a more detailed illustration of these underlying mechanisms).

Taken together, the question whether different factors contribute to the PM age deficit in the laboratory versus the age benefit in the field can be answered with “yes and no”.

Specifically, as successful PM in the naturalistic setting and the field requires similar

processes, all factors can be potentially involved in both settings. However, as certain features determine the individual impact of these factors in their interplay during the process of

prospective remembering, some factors have a greater impact on age differences in the laboratory while others have a greater impact in the field. As noted, some of those features that determine which factors have a strong effect concern for example the relatively highly standardized testing procedure in the laboratory that requires to fulfill the intentions according to rather strict rules. This increases the impact of factors that are related to cognitive

performance (such as general cognitive abilities and the vulnerability to unfavorable task characteristics and age stereotype threat). In contrast, there is a relatively large flexibility concerning intention realization in the field. This increases the impact of motivational aspects, personality traits, and the use of strategies that allow to compensate the cognitive deficits. In sum, the pattern of PM age deficits in the laboratory and PM age benefits in the field reflects the pattern of effects caused by the inherent factors of the respective setting where PM is examined.