2.2.1Overview
The findings from Study 1 revealed that implementation intentions had an enhancing effect on memory of stereotype-inconsistent information despite cognitive load, but goal intentions had small or no effects. While if-then plans provide a linkage between a situational cue and the intended behavior and are therefore activated automatically, goal intentions essentially describe the intended action without providing a reminder to respond at the right moment or in response to the proper cue (Gollwitzer, 1996; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). As has previously been shown, under distracting circumstances the initiation of goal striving is often disregarded (e.g., Brandstaetter et al., 2001; Gollwitzer & Schaal, 1998). Thus, it can be concluded that if task demands (e.g., cognitive load) interrupt the retrieval of the intended action from long-term memory, goals are neglected (Einstein, Smith, McDaniel, & Shaw, 1997; Smith, 2003).
To test this hypothesis, a study was conducted that utilized the first part of a former impression formation study (Haller, 2004) that was similar in methodology and results to Study 1. Participants had to read a description of a typical “macho” man named Frank which included one item of stereotype-inconsistent information and several items of stereotype-consistent information. Participants were assigned the goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of Frank; others were additionally required to form an implementation intention that specified the stereotype-inconsistent information as the critical cue. In addition, either cognitive load (phonological loop or central executive) was induced, or not. Furthermore, a control group was run; they simply read the description of Frank without forming an intention or working on the cognitive load task. By means of long-term memory tests, it was examined whether participants remembered the stereotype-inconsistent information better if they had formed an implementation intention or a goal intention, independent of cognitive load. Results showed that participants were impaired by cognitive load resulting in worse recall und recognition of the stereotype-inconsistent information in the cognitive load conditions compared to the control group.
Consequently, in the present study, participants were exposed to the same story about the target person Frank, the same goal intention, and the same cognitive load manipulation as applied in the study by Haller (2004). However, after implementing the goal intention and reading the description of the target person (with or without load), participants were not given
long-term memory tests about the target person. Participants were instead asked about their goals during impression formation to examine the extent to which they forgot their goal intention during the impression formation task and to what extent they neglected to realize their goal intention, respectively. Thus, awareness of the goal intention during task completion was assessed.
In the cognitive load conditions (phonological loop load and central executive load), it was predicted that participants would not remember their goal intention to the extent than those not under cognitive load when reading the description of the target person. Furthermore, they should be less aware of the goal intention during impression formation in comparison to the no load participants. Thereby, central executive load should impact recall and awareness of the intention more than phonological loop load.
2.2.2Method Participants
Sixty female students from the Universität Konstanz participated in the experiment in exchange for 2.50 Euros. Their average age was 23.2 (SD = 2.60). The data of one participant was excluded from analysis because she failed to follow the instructions properly. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental (phonological loop load or central executive load) or control condition.
Design
The study followed a 3 between (Cognitive Load: no cognitive load vs. phonological load vs. central executive load) factorial design. As dependent variables, the answers to various questions about the goal intention were collected.
Procedure and material
Participants arrived individually at the laboratory and were greeted by a female experimenter. The experimenter requested them to form an impression about a man named Frank while reading an essay about him (see Appendix D, p. 153). Before participants were provided with Frank’s description, they were told that it was important to form a non-stereotypic impression of Frank. Therefore, participants were assigned the following goal intention “I want to form a non-stereotypic impression of Frank and thus take all of his activities into consideration” (Ich will mir einen vorurteilsfreien Eindruck von Frank bilden und berücksichtige dabei alle seine Aktivitäten) on a sheet of paper (see Appendix D, p. 151). Participants
were subsequently asked to reinforce this goal intention by highlighting the most important words in the sentence.
In the no cognitive load condition, participants were asked to read the information about Frank (“one time and at a natural pace”) and form an impression of him. Participants in the two cognitive load conditions, prior to the presentation of the target person’s information, practiced their respective cognitive load task (i.e., either the phonological loop load or the central executive load task). The cognitive load manipulation was implemented the same way as in Study 1: In the phonological loop load condition, participants were asked to repeat the German word ‘und’
(English: ‘and’) synchronized to a metronome adjusted to a frequency of one beat every 1.5 seconds, while silently reading the essay. Participants in the central executive load condition were requested to generate random numbers (0-9) synchronized to a metronome adjusted to a frequency of one beat every 1.5 seconds while reading the essay (see Appendix D, p. 152).
Dependent variables. After reading the description of the target person (either with or without cognitive load), all participants answered questions about their processing of the goal intention they set prior to reading the essay. These questions were the following: “What did you think about while you read the description of Frank?” (Was ging Ihnen durch den Kopf, während Sie die Beschreibung von Frank durchlasen?), “What kind of tasks did you have to complete?” (Was gehörte alles zu der Aufgabe, die Sie gerade durchgeführt haben?), “Which of the tasks you listed was the most important to you?” (Welcher der von Ihnen eben aufgeführten Teile des Experimentes war Ihnen am wichtigsten?), “How aware were you of this goal while reading the description of Frank?” (Wie präsent war Ihnen dieses Ziel während dem Lesen der Beschreibung von Frank?). Participants marked their answers on a seven centimeter (2.76 inch) analogue scale labeled not at all on the left-hand side and very on the right-hand side (see Appendix D, p. 154-158).
Manipulation checks. Furthermore, they completed the following manipulation check questions: “How difficult was it for you to form an impression of Frank?” (Wie schwer fiel es Ihnen, sich einen Eindruck von Frank zu bilden?), „Did you have the goal of forming a non-stereotypic impression of Frank and thus take all of his activities into consideration?” (Hatten Sie das Ziel, sich einen vorurteilsfreien Eindruck von Frank zu bilden und dabei alle seine Aktivitäten zu berücksichtigen?),
“How important was it for you to realize this goal?” (Wie wichtig war es Ihnen, dieses Ziel zu verfolgen?), “How much effort did you have to exert to act on this goal?” (Wie stark bemühten Sie sich, diesem Ziel entsprechend zu handeln?). Again, participants either marked their answers on a seven centimeter (2.76 inch) analogue scale labeled not at all on the left-hand side and very on the right-hand side, or answered the questions by indicating yes or no, or were free to write down their own answers (see Appendix D, p. 154-159).
Questions regarding demographic information came at the end before participants were fully debriefed, thanked, and paid.
2.2.3Results
Manipulation checks
In order to check whether or not the cognitive load manipulations were successfully implemented, it was asked “How difficult was it for you to form an impression of Frank?” A one-factorial ANOVA (between: no load vs. phonological load vs. central executive load) revealed significant results, F(2, 56) = 16.88, p < .001, η² = .38. As expected, planned contrasts showed that participants in the no load condition (M = 2.57, SD = 1.51) reported that it was easier for them to form an impression of the target person than those in the central executive load condition (M = 4.67, SD = 1.30), t(56) = 4.51, p < .001. However, there was no difference between participants in the phonological load condition (M = 2.18, SD = 1.54) and those not under cognitive load (M = 2.57, SD = 1.51), t < 1, regarding level of difficulty during impression formation. Finally, central executive participants expressed the impression formation as being more difficult than phonological loop load participants, t(56) = 5.41, p < .001.
Next, it was analyzed whether participants remembered setting the goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of the target person (“Did you have the goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of Frank and thus take all of his activities into consideration?”). Participants’ answers were analyzed using a chi-square test4. This revealed no difference between the three load conditions, p > .51, and additionally showed that nearly everyone remembered the goal intention afterwards (no cognitive load: 100%, phonological loop load: 95%, central executive load: 95%).
To investigate participants’ commitment towards the goal intention, a one-factorial ANOVA (between: no load vs. phonological load vs. central executive load) concerning the question “How important was it for you to realize this goal?” was conducted indicating a significant effect of Cognitive Load, F(2, 56) = 3.21, p < .05, η² = .10. Participants in the phonological load condition (M = 5.72, SD = 1.16) reported that it was more important for them to realize their goal than it was for participants in the central executive condition (M = 4.55, SD = 1.74), t(56) = 2.50, p < .05. There was no difference between participants in the control condition (M = 5.22, SD = 1.43) and those in the phonological loop load condition,
4Preconditions of the chi-square test suggest that a maximum of 20% of the cells may be smaller than five. If this condition was not fulfilled in the analyses because crosstabulations were too small, Fisher’s exact tests were used to calculate Fisher’s z (Bortz, 1999), indicated by a mere p-value.
t(56) = 1.06, p = .29, or between control participants and central executive load participants, t(56) = 1.43, p = .16.
Finally, there was no difference between conditions regarding the question “How much effort did you have to exert to act on this goal?”, F(2, 56) = 1.65, p = .20, η² = .06 (no cognitive load: M = 4.92, SD = 1.84; phonological loop load: M = 5.42, SD = 1.67; central executive load:
M = 4.56, SD = 1.31).
Dependent variables
In order to test the hypothesis that goal intentions are strongly neglected under conditions of cognitive load, as they cannot be maintained in memory, the answers to the question “What did you think about while you read the description of Frank?” were analyzed.
Thereby, one point was awarded if the goal intention was successfully remembered and no point was awarded for not remembering the goal intention. Chi-square tests revealed a significant difference between conditions, χ²(1, N=39) = 6.47, p < .05. Participants in the no load condition (53%) reported thinking about their goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of Frank during the impression formation task more than those in the phonological loop load condition (20%), χ²(1, N=39) = 4.51, p < .05, and those in the central executive load condition (20%), χ²(1, N=39) = 4.51, p < .05. Yet there was no difference between the cognitive load conditions, p = .65.
Additionally, participants were asked what kind of tasks they had to complete during the experiment (“What kind of tasks did you have to complete?”). If they mentioned the goal intention, one point was awarded and if they did not, then no point was awarded. In the no load condition, 89% of the participants mentioned the goal intention. In both the phonological load and the central executive condition 80% of the participants mentioned the goal intention indicating no differences across the three conditions, p > .36.
However, of those participants who mentioned the goal intention, only 37% thought that the realization of the goal intention was the most important task when reading the description. Thereby, differences between cognitive load conditions were significant, χ²(1, N=49) = 14.99, p < .01. Significantly more participants in the no load condition (71%) reported this portion of the task as most important to them compared to those in the phonological loop load condition (31%), χ²(1, N=33) = 5.11, p < .05, and those in the central executive condition (6%), χ²(1, N=33)=14.29, p < .001. There was only a marginally significant difference between participants in the phonological loop load (31%) and those in the central executive load condition (6%), p = .09.
Participants were subsequently asked if they were given the goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of Frank (see manipulation check questions) by answering the question “How aware were you of this goal while reading the description of Frank?” Answers were analyzed by a one-factorial ANOVA with the factor Cognitive Load (between: no load vs.
phonological load vs. central executive load) which was significant, F(2, 56) = 7.40, p < .001, η²
= .21. Participants in the central executive condition (M = 2.89, SD = 2.12) reported that they were less aware of the goal intention than those in the phonological loop condition (M = 4.50, SD = 2.27), t(56) = 2.53, p < .05, and the control participants (M = 5.32, SD = 1.54), t(56) = 3.77, p < .001. There was no difference between control and phonological loop participants, t(56) = 1.28, p = .21.
2.2.4Discussion
This study was designed to investigate the memory and awareness of goal intentions under cognitive load. Participants were given the goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of a target person by taking all of his activities into consideration. Thereby, two-thirds of the participants were placed under cognitive load of the phonological loop and the central executive, respectively. As predicted, it was observed that only participants in the no load condition were able to hold their goal intention of forming a non-stereotypical impression of the target person active in working memory during task performance.
Independent of load, participants answered that they had set the goal intention and mentioned it by listing the different tasks they had to complete throughout the experiment (more than 80%). Commitment to the goal intention thereby was quite comparable, only phonological loop participants reported higher commitment than central executive load participants. However when asking participants which subtask of the experiment was most important to them, results indicated that participants in both cognitive load conditions regarded the goal intention as less important than control participants. This result is further supported by answers to the question what participants thought about while reading the description of the target person. As expected, no load participants were more aware of the goal intention than cognitive load participants (phonological loop as well as central executive load).
Prospective memory research claims that intended actions are stored in memory in a higher activated state than other memory contents (Goschke & Kuhl, 1993; Koriat, Ben-Zur, &
Nussbaum, 1990; Marsh, Hicks, & Bink, 1998a). Thereby, intended actions are more sensitive to internal or external retrieval cues than other memory contents (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000).
Thus, as soon as critical cues are encountered, they should quickly be brought to mind until the intended action is performed. In this study, the goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic
impression of the target person while taking all of his activities into consideration was provided to participants. Since information that contradicts prior expectancies and conceivabilities about a social group helps individuate a perceived person (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), such information should have been especially important to encode in order for participants to reach their goal. Encountering this information then activated the intended action of forming a non-stereotypic impression. Given that participants were asked questions about the processing of goal intentions, instead of a judgment of the target person, the intended action was not completely fulfilled, thus leaving the intention in a highly activated state. Consequently, if participants remembered the goal intention in the questionnaire, it must have been activated when reading the description of the target person, too.
In contrast to the no load condition, participants in the phonological loop load and the central executive load condition paid less attention to the goal intention than those in the no load condition. Presumably, they were more involved in reading the essay describing the target person and simultaneously performing the cognitive load task than thinking about their goal intention. This indicates that the resource-consuming processing of goal intentions is not able to concurrently hold the representation of the goal intention and manage ongoing task demands.
For instance, prospective memory research suggests that working memory resources are necessary for the performance of goals (Martin & Schumann-Hengsteler, 2001; McDaniel et al., 1998). This suggests, for example, that one has to maintain the intention in working memory while engaging in ongoing activities. As cognitive resources were scarce under cognitive load, the goal intention could not be attained like it was in the no cognitive load conditions.
The finding that the phonological loop load participants were more aware of the goal intention than the central executive load participants and furthermore that there was no difference between no load and phonological loop load participants may be interpreted as the phonological loop load having a smaller impact on working memory processes than central executive load, as shown in former studies (Achtziger, 2003; Baddeley, 1986, 1996; Baddeley &
Hitch, 2000; Haller, 2004). This effect was replicated in the present study. There was no significant difference in the answers on the difficultly experienced when forming an impression of Frank between participants in the no load condition and the phonological loop load condition. Nonetheless, a difference was found in the answers regarding what participants were thinking about during the impression formation task. Fifty-three percent of the no load participants reported that they thought about their goal intention of forming a non-stereotypic impression of Frank during the impression formation task, yet only 20% of participants in the phonological loop load condition did. This indicates that although phonological loop load
participants subjectively reported that it was “easy” for them to form an impression of Frank, they seem to have forgotten the goal intention significantly more often than control participants.
Similarly, cognitive load conditions did not differ in their answers concerning how much effort they had to exert to act on their goal. Similar results were found in previous impression formation studies (Achtziger, 2003; Haller, 2004). However, findings from these studies also showed that the effectiveness of the goal intentions was indeed affected by cognitive load, assuming that goal intentions do not produce effort explicitly, but implicitly via decreased performance.
To summarize, holding an intention active in working memory while conducting a subsequent task requires working memory capacities. If these capacities are constrained, execution of the intended action is hindered. Thus, in this study, the prediction was supported that forming goal intentions cannot enhance the processing of stereotype-inconsistent information under cognitive load.