LaTeX Forum

% This file was created with JabRef 2.8.1.
% Encoding: MacRoman

@ARTICLE{Cohen2005,
  author = {Cohen, Anna-Lisa and Dixon, Roger A. and Lindsay, D. Stephen},
  title = {The intention interference effect and aging: Similar magnitude of
	effects for young and old adults.},
  journal = {Applied Cognitive Psychology},
  year = {2005},
  volume = {19},
  pages = {1177 - 1197},
  number = {9},
  issn = {1099-0720}
}

@ARTICLE{Forster2005,
  author = {Forster, J and Liberman, N and Higgins, ET},
  title = {Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals},
  journal = {JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY},
  year = {2005},
  volume = {41},
  pages = {220-239},
  number = {3},
  month = {MAY},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.009},
  issn = {0022-1031},
  researcherid-numbers = {Liberman, Nira /D-7994-2011},
  unique-id = {ISI:000228431200002}
}

@ARTICLE{Freeman2003,
  author = {Freeman, Jayne E. and Ellis, Judi A.},
  title = {The intention-superiority effect for naturally occurring activities:
	The role of intention accessibility in everyday prospective remembering
	in young and older adults.},
  journal = {International Journal of Psychology},
  year = {2003},
  volume = {38},
  pages = {215 - 228},
  number = {4},
  issn = {1464-066X}
}

@ARTICLE{Goschke1993,
  author = {Goschke, Thomas and Kuhl, Julius},
  title = {Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory.},
  journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
  year = {1993},
  volume = {19},
  pages = {1211 - 1226},
  number = {5},
  abstract = {In 4 experiments the authors investigated dynamic properties of representations
	of intentions. After Ss had memorized 2 texts describing simple activities,
	they were instructed that they would have to later execute one of
	the scripts. On an intervening recognition test, words from the to-be-executed
	script produced faster latencies than did words from a 2nd to-be-memorized
	script. This intention-superiority effect was obtained even when
	(1) selective encoding and poststudy imagery or rehearsal of the
	to-be-executed script was prohibited and (2) Ss expected a final
	free-recall test for both scripts. In a control condition in which
	Ss had to observe someone else executing a script, latencies for
	words from the to-be-observed script did not differ from neutral
	words. In conclusion, representations of intentions show a heightened
	level of subthreshold activation in long-term memory that cannot
	be accounted for by the use of controlled strategies. (PsycINFO Database
	Record (c) 2012 APA, al},
  issn = {1939-1285}
}

@ARTICLE{Liberman2000,
  author = {Liberman, Nira and Förster, Jens},
  title = {Expression after suppression: A motivational explanation of postsuppressional
	rebound.},
  journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
  year = {2000},
  volume = {79},
  pages = {190 - 203},
  number = {2},
  issn = {1939-1315}
}

@ARTICLE{Marsh1998,
  author = {Marsh, RL and Hicks, JL and Bink, ML},
  title = {Activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions},
  journal = {JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION},
  year = {1998},
  volume = {24},
  pages = {350-361},
  number = {2},
  month = {MAR},
  abstract = {The intention-superiority effect is the finding that response latencies
	are faster for items related to an uncompleted intention as compared
	with materials that have no associated intentionality. T. Goschke
	and J. Kuhl(1993) used recognition latency for simple action scripts
	to document this effect. We used a lexical-decision task to replicate
	that shorter latencies were associated with uncompleted intentions
	as compared with neutral materials (Experiments 1 and 3). Experiments
	2-4, however, demonstrated that latencies were longer for completed
	scripts as compared with neutral materials. In Experiment 3, shorter
	latencies were also obtained for partially completed scripts. The
	results are discussed in terms of the activation and inhibition that
	may guide behavior, as well as how these results may inform theories
	of prospective memory.},
  doi = {10.1037//0278-7393.24.2.350},
  issn = {0278-7393},
  unique-id = {ISI:000072497100006}
}

@ARTICLE{Marsh1999,
  author = {Marsh, Richard L. and Hicks, Jason L. and Bryan, Eric S.},
  title = {The activation of unrelated and canceled intentions.},
  journal = {Memory \& Cognition},
  year = {1999},
  volume = {27},
  pages = {320 - 327},
  number = {2},
  issn = {0090-502X}
}

@ARTICLE{McDaniels2000,
  author = {McDaniels, Mark A. and Einstein, Gilles O.},
  title = {Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval:
	A multiprocess framework.},
  journal = {Applied Cognitive Psychology},
  year = {2000},
  volume = {14},
  pages = {S127 - S144},
  issn = {1099-0720}
}

@ARTICLE{Meil√°n2011,
  author = {Meilán, Juan J. G. and Carro, Juan and Arana, José M. and Pérez,
	Enrique},
  title = {Intention superiority effect on implicit memory of shopping lists:
	Activation and inhibition processes.},
  journal = {Motivation and Emotion},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {35},
  pages = {144 - 150},
  number = {2},
  abstract = {Intentional memory is defined as the ability to remember to perform
	intentions in the future. Forming an intention such as "shopping"
	activates access to memories related to the products on the shopping
	list. As Intention Superiority Effect (ISE) studies show, these memories
	are more accessible in semantic and episodic memory, more activated
	over time and protected from competing representations. The inhibition
	of competing representations in intentional memory has been little
	examined so far. In this study we attempt to analyze changes in activation
	in the recall of products on a shopping list and competitors through
	implicit memory tasks. Sixty-five participants learned two shopping
	lists on a computer. Later, they were told to virtually buy one of
	them (prospective list) and not the other (neutral list). Prior to
	intentional task execution, they performed an implicit retrieval
	task in which we manipulated the appearance or not of cues from the
	intentional list and analyzed the infl},
  issn = {0146-7239},
  keywords = {intention superiority effect, implicit memory, shopping lists, activation,
	semantic memory, episodic memory, product recall, inhibition, intentional
	memory, Implicit Memory, Intention, Recall (Learning), Shopping,
	Episodic Memory, Semantic Memory},
  url = {http://wwwdb.dbod.de:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2011-10132-004&site=ehost-live}
}

@ARTICLE{Penningroth2011,
  author = {Penningroth, Suzanna L.},
  title = {When does the intention-superiority effect occur? Activation patterns
	before and after task completion, and moderating variables.},
  journal = {Journal of Cognitive Psychology},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {23},
  pages = {140 - 156},
  number = {1},
  issn = {2044-592X}
}

@ARTICLE{Penningroth2012,
  author = {Penningroth, Suzanna L. and Graf, Peter and Gray, Jennifer M.},
  title = {The effect of a working memory load on the intention-superiority
	effect: Examining three features of automaticity.},
  journal = {Applied Cognitive Psychology},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {26},
  pages = {441 - 450},
  number = {3},
  abstract = {The intention-superiority effect refers to the finding that intentions
	are more accessible than other memory contents. Our primary goal
	was to test for automatic processing in this effect, testing three
	features of automaticity: unintentionality, effortlessness, and lack
	of awareness. We used a postponed-intention paradigm with short action
	scripts. The intention-superiority effect was defined as greater
	accessibility in a lexical decision task (LDT) for words from to-be-performed
	scripts than to-be-remembered scripts. Working memory load was experimentally
	manipulated to assess automatic processing. A general intention-superiority
	effect was found, demonstrating the automatic feature of unintentionality,
	and it was not diminished by a high load, demonstrating the automatic
	feature of effortlessness. Also, participants who reported that they
	lacked awareness of the link between the LDT and encoded scripts
	showed a larger intention-superiority effect than participants who
	were aware. T},
  issn = {1099-0720},
  keywords = {working memory load, intention-superiority effect, automaticity features,
	lexical decision, Automation, Human Channel Capacity, Intention,
	Lexical Decision, Short Term Memory},
  url = {http://wwwdb.dbod.de:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2012-13332-013&site=ehost-live}
}

@ARTICLE{Scullin2012,
  author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Bugg, Julie M.},
  title = {Failing to Forget: Prospective Memory Commission Errors Can Result
	From Spontaneous Retrieval and Impaired Executive Control.},
  journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
  year = {2012},
  abstract = {Prospective memory (PM) research typically examines the ability to
	remember to execute delayed intentions but often ignores the ability
	to forget finished intentions. We had participants perform (or not
	perform; control group) a PM task and then instructed them that the
	PM task was finished. We later (re)presented the PM cue. Approximately
	25% of participants made a commission error, the erroneous repetition
	of a PM response following intention completion. Comparisons between
	the PM groups and control group suggested that commission errors
	occurred in the absence of preparatory monitoring. Response time
	analyses additionally suggested that some participants experienced
	fatigue across the ongoing task block, and those who did were more
	susceptible to making a commission error. These results supported
	the hypothesis that commission errors can arise from the spontaneous
	retrieval of finished intentions and possibly the failure to exert
	executive control to oppose the PM response. (PsycIN},
  issn = {1939-1285},
  keywords = {No terms assigned}
}

@ARTICLE{Scullin2012a,
  author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Bugg, Julie M. and McDaniel, Mark A.},
  title = {Whoops, I did it again: Commission errors in prospective memory.},
  journal = {Psychology and Aging},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {27},
  pages = {46 - 53},
  number = {1},
  abstract = {Prospective memory research almost exclusively examines remembering
	to execute an intention, but the ability to forget completed intentions
	may be similarly important. We had younger and older adults perform
	a prospective memory task (press Q when you see corn or dancer) and
	then told them that the intention was completed. Participants later
	performed a lexical-decision task (Phase 2) in which the prospective
	memory cues reappeared. Initial prospective memory performance was
	similar between age groups, but older adults were more likely than
	younger adults to press Q during Phase 2 (i.e., commission errors).
	This study provides the first experimental demonstration of event-based
	prospective memory commission errors after all prospective memory
	tasks are finished and identifies multiple factors that increase
	risk for commission errors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA,
	all rights reserved) (journal abstract)},
  issn = {1939-1498}
}

@ARTICLE{Scullin2011,
  author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Bugg, Julie M. and McDaniel, Mark A. and
	Einstein, Gilles O.},
  title = {Prospective memory and aging: Preserved spontaneous retrieval, but
	impaired deactivation, in older adults.},
  journal = {Memory \& Cognition},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {39},
  pages = {1232 - 1240},
  number = {7},
  abstract = {Prospective remembering is partially supported by cue-driven spontaneous
	retrieval processes. We investigated spontaneous retrieval processes
	in younger and older adults by presenting prospective memory target
	cues during a lexical decision task following instructions that the
	prospective memory task was finished. Spontaneous retrieval was inferred
	from slowed lexical decision responses to target cues (i.e., intention
	interference). When the intention was finished, younger adults efficiently
	deactivated their intention, but the older adults continued to retrieve
	their intentions. Levels of inhibitory functioning were negatively
	associated with intention interference in the older adult group,
	but not in the younger adult group. These results indicate that normal
	aging might not compromise spontaneous retrieval processes but that
	the ability to deactivate completed intentions is impaired. (PsycINFO
	Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)},
  issn = {0090-502X}
}

@ARTICLE{Scullin2009,
  author = {Scullin, Michael K. and Einstein, Gilles O. and McDaniel, Mark A.},
  title = {Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished
	prospective memories.},
  journal = {Memory \& Cognition},
  year = {2009},
  volume = {37},
  pages = {425 - 433},
  number = {4},
  issn = {0090-502X}
}

@ARTICLE{Walser2012,
  author = {Walser, Moritz and Fischer, Rico and Goschke, Thomas},
  title = {The failure of deactivating intentions: Aftereffects of completed
	intentions in the repeated prospective memory cue paradigm.},
  journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition},
  year = {2012},
  volume = {38},
  pages = {1030 - 1044},
  number = {4},
  abstract = {We used a newly developed experimental paradigm to investigate aftereffects
	of completed intentions on subsequent performance that required the
	maintenance and execution of new intentions. Participants performed
	an ongoing number categorization task and an additional prospective
	memory (PM) task, which required them to respond to PM cues that
	differed from standard stimuli in 1 particular visual feature. Although
	the feature defining the to-be-acted-upon PM cue changed in each
	block, the irrelevant PM cue of the previous PM task block was occasionally
	repeated in the subsequent block. In 4 experiments we found that
	performance in the ongoing task was substantially slowed for repeated
	PM cue trials compared to oddball trials, which also differed in
	a visual feature from standard stimuli but never served as PM cues.
	This aftereffect decreased as a function of delay after intention
	completion. These findings indicate that intentions can exhibit persisting
	activation even after they have },
  issn = {1939-1285},
  keywords = {intention, intention-superiority effect, prospective memory, intention
	deactivation, deactivation failure, Intention, Performance, Prospective
	Memory}
}

@ARTICLE{Watson1988,
  author = {Watson D., Clark L.A. and Tellegen A.},
  title = {Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
	affect: The PANAS scales},
  journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
  year = {1988},
  volume = {54},
  pages = {1063-1070},
  owner = {Judith},
  timestamp = {2012.10.13}
}

@comment{jabref-meta: selector_review:}

@comment{jabref-meta: selector_publisher:}

@comment{jabref-meta: selector_author:}

@comment{jabref-meta: selector_journal:}

@comment{jabref-meta: selector_keywords:}

\bibliography{Literatur} 

%\documentclass{scrbook}

\documentclass[a4paper]{scrartcl}

\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
%\lhead{}
\chead{}
\rhead{\thepage}
%\lfoot{}
\cfoot{}
%\rfoot{}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0.0pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0.0pt}
\renewcommand{\headwidth}{17 cm}

\usepackage[top=2.5cm, bottom= 2.5 cm, right= 2 cm, left= 2 cm]{geometry}
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
%\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{ucs}
\usepackage{graphicx,lipsum,tabularx,sistyle}
\SIstyle{German}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{adjmulticol}
\usepackage{apacite}
\usepackage[format=plain,labelformat=simple,labelsep=period,labelfont=it,justification=justified,font=footnotesize]{caption}
\bibliographystyle{apacite}

\begin{document}
\tableofcontents
\newpage
\begin{adjmulticols}{2}{}{}
\section{Theorieteil}

blablablabla \citeA{Walser2012, Walser2011} blablablabla

\bibliography{Literatur}
\end{document}