Strategic monitoring in prospective memory: Use of contextual cues or a bias to monitor more in words?

Madeline R. Valdez & Julie Bugg

Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, memory, and cognition2026https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001588article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Strategic monitoring is the heightening of monitoring in relevant contexts where prospective memory (PM) targets are expected and the relaxation of monitoring in irrelevant contexts. There is ample evidence for strategic monitoring, but most studies instructed participants about relevant contexts (e.g., PM targets will appear in words but not in nonwords). In Experiments 1 and 2, we examined whether strategic monitoring emerges without such instructions when participants must learn that words are the PM-relevant context. Participants monitored more in words than in nonwords, demonstrating experience-guided strategic monitoring. However, this pattern emerged even before the first PM target, suggesting a word-monitoring bias. In Experiment 3, the PM-relevant context was shifted to nonwords so that evidence for experience-guided strategic monitoring could not be attributed to a word-monitoring bias. Participants monitored equally in words and nonwords. Collectively, Experiments 1-3 revealed no clear evidence of experience-guided strategic monitoring independent of a word-monitoring bias. Experiment 4 was identical to Experiment 3 except that participants were directly instructed that PM targets would occur in nonwords. There was only short-lived evidence of instructed strategic monitoring. Our findings cast doubt on the possibility that strategic monitoring can arise through experience (i.e., via the learning of associations between contextual cues and PM relevance), suggesting that strategic monitoring may require instructions. Additionally, we found a previously undocumented word-monitoring bias. Understanding this bias is important for instructed and experience-guided paradigms, as it can mimic strategic monitoring when words are the relevant context or obscure evidence of strategic monitoring when nonwords are the relevant context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001588

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{madeline2026,
  title        = {{Strategic monitoring in prospective memory: Use of contextual cues or a bias to monitor more in words?}},
  author       = {Madeline R. Valdez & Julie Bugg},
  journal      = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, memory, and cognition},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001588},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Strategic monitoring in prospective memory: Use of contextual cues or a bias to monitor more in words?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.