Personality predicts prospective memory task performance: An adult lifespan study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do interindividual differences in prospective memory task performance reflect individual differences in personality and lifestyle? Do the cognitive abilities known to change with age retain their power to predict episodic prospective memory task performance after controlling for personality and lifestyle variables, and do personality and lifestyle variables offer predictive power apart from that provided by cognitive ability measures? To answer these questions, we conducted a study with community-living healthy individuals (n= 141) between 18 and 81 years of age. They completed three different episodic prospective memory tasks--two laboratory tasks and one field task--as well as various measures of personality, lifestyle, and cognitive ability. The results indicated that personality and lifestyle reliably predicted who will succeed and who will fail on all three episodic prospective memory tasks. Conscientiousness predicted performance on two of the prospective memory tasks; socially prescribed perfectionism and neuroticism each predicted performance on one of the prospective memory tasks. Cognitive ability predicted performance on one of the laboratory prospective memory tasks but not on the other two prospective memory tasks. After we controlled for individual differences in personality and lifestyle variables, cognitive ability was no longer able to predict performance on the laboratory prospective memory task. By contrast, controlling for cognitive ability had no influence on the predictive power of the personality and lifestyle variables.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".