Koriat A, Ben-Zur H, Nussbaum A
Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Israel.
Mem Cognit. 1990 Nov;18(6):568-78. doi: 10.3758/bf03197099.
What is the nature of the representation underlying memory for future tasks such as calling the doctor or buying milk? If this representation consists of a verbal instruction that is translated into action at the time of retrieval, then memory should be better when tested via verbatim recall of the instruction than when tested via actual performance. Three experiments rejected this possibility, indicating better memory for a perform mode of report than for a recall mode of report. This was true in Experiment 1 in which subjects saw a series of verbal instructions (e.g., "move the eraser," "lift the cup," "touch the ashtray"), with advance information regarding the mode of report required during testing. In Experiment 2, the advance cue was valid only in 75% of the trials. Memory depended more heavily on the expected mode of report than on the actual mode of report, suggesting that the perform superiority is due to processes that occur during encoding. In Experiment 3, subjects learned 20 phrases depicting minitasks. More tasks were remembered by subjects tested via performance than by subjects tested via verbatim recall. A second part of Experiment 3 also indicated superior memory when a perform test was expected, regardless of which mode of report was actually required. The results were compared with the finding that subject-performed tasks are better remembered than are their verbal instructions, which suggests that the representation underlying memory for future assignments may take advantage of the imaginal-enactive properties of the envisaged acts. Other possible differences between memory for to-be-recalled tasks and memory for to-be-performed tasks are discussed.
