Did I Forget to Lock the Door? The Link between Prospective Memory Failures and Doubt in the Compulsion to Check
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated links between prospective memory failures and checking compulsions. The findings suggest that experiences with prospective memory failures may contribute to the intrusive doubts that tasks were not completed that instigate checking compulsions. However, the link between prospective memory and intrusive doubts has yet to be empirically investigated. Accordingly, the present study focused on examining whether prospective memory failures are related to doubting, as well as whether doubting mediates the relationship between prospective memory and checking compulsions. Undergraduate students completed self-report measures of checking compulsions, doubting, prospective memory and retrospective memory. Participants also completed objective tests of prospective memory and retrospective memory. Prospective memory failures and excessive doubting showed consistent correlations. Two of three objective tests of prospective memory and one of two measures of confidence in performance on prospective memory tests showed significant correlations with checking. Tests of mediation showed that the links between checking compulsions, objective prospective memory test failures and confidence in prospective memory performance were mediated by doubting. The results thereby supported the hypothesis that experiences with prospective memory failures contribute to the intrusive doubts that instigate checking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it