If we test subjects at home with everyday tasks (for example, remembering to call someone twice a day), older people do better than younger ones—although the effect is precisely the opposite in the laboratory

Foresee and Forget: How to Remember the Future. Matthias Kliegel and Nicola Ballhausen. Scientific American Mind, Scientific American Mind 29, 29 - 34 (2018), doi 10.1038/scientificamericanmind0518-29

---
When Elders Do Better

If we test subjects at home with everyday tasks (for example, remembering to call someone twice a day), older people do better than younger ones—although the effect is precisely the opposite in the laboratory. This finding raises two important questions, which our team and colleagues throughout the world are examining: How is the odd discrepancy between laboratory and everyday life to be explained? And does prospective memory become less reliable with age, or does it not?

Tasks performed under laboratory conditions and those performed in daily life differ in various ways. In the laboratory memory is usually tested using standardized tasks that require multitasking. Under these conditions test subjects are generally unable to come up with mnemonic devices or use such memory aids as kitchen timers or to-do lists. For example, participants may be asked to look at a video and press a button every five minutes, tasks that have no intrinsic meaning to them. This may well be why they perform less well in the laboratory than out in the world, where priorities must be established and forgetting can have real consequences. In addition, the time span over which test subjects must retain something in memory is considerably shorter than it is in everyday life. At the same time, the lives of younger and older people are not really comparable.

The former are often engaged in study, must manage a variety of tasks and navigate unexpected situations; the lives of the latter are usually more predictable and follow a less chaotic rhythm. This circumstance makes it easier to remember. In addition, younger people may be more used to laboratory tests or feel less stressed in this setting. We also cannot rule out that an exaggerated self-image may play a role in the age paradox. Although both age groups underestimate their prospective abilities in the lab, only the younger participants tended to overestimate their performance in their usual, familiar environment. This may lead to their being less well prepared for a task.

Does prospective memory decrease as we age? If we focus only on laboratory experiments the situation is clear: This area of memory, too, becomes less reliable with age. Studies done in people’s own environments, however, have shown the capacity we need to maintain our daily lives remains intact for quite a long time, as long as we stay healthy. We are not yet able to answer the question conclusively, because too few studies have been conducted on the performance of different age groups in everyday life.

Future research must examine at least three dimensions of prospective memory: First, more experiments are needed on everyday life. Only sophisticated methods that do not interfere with the daily lives of test subjects will enable us to measure their prospective memory in a natural setting. Second, we must closely examine noncognitive factors such as motivations, emotions and stresses in order to understand this memory system. Finally, understanding the age-prospective-memory paradox may provide an opening for research aimed at maintaining certain cognitive processes and even improving them over the life span. There is some reason to hope a change in perspective from the deficits experienced by older people to the capacities that remain intact may change considerably our image of aging.