2013. Vol.4, No.2, 83-87
Published Online February 2013 in SciRes
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 83
The Effect of Motivation and Attention on Bias in Memory for
Sebastian Schwab1, Daniel Memmert1, Michael M. Roy2
1Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany
2Department of Psychology, Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, USA
Received October 30th, 2012; revised November 29th, 2012; accepted December 23rd, 2012
In the present study, we investigated the effect of regulatory focus on bias in memory for task duration.
Specifically, whether or not a person’s motivational outlook, seeking gains or avoiding losses, would
cause them to over- or underestimate task duration. Eighty-four college students completed an origami
task for which motivational focus (gains or losses), experience with the task and amount of attention di-
rected to the task were manipulated. Participants with a focus on seeking gains tended to remember the
task as taking less time when their attention was drawn towards the details of the task instead of away
from the task than did participants in the other conditions. It seems that this effect occurred because par-
ticipants with a focus for seeking gains did not sufficiently account for the fact that drawing attention to-
ward the task caused them to take longer on the task than on previous trials.
Keywords: Motivation; Attention; Regulatory Focus; Time Estimation
People are often inaccurate and biased when estimating pre-
vious task duration (Block & Zakay, 1997; Fraisse, 1963; Roy,
Christenfeld, & McKenzie, 2005). Task variables, such as whether
or not the interval was filled or unfilled (Wearden, Norton,
Martin, & Montford-Bebb, 2007) or relatively short or long
(Roy & Christenfeld, 2008; Vierordt, 1868), can influence size
and direction of participants’ bias in estimates of previous task
duration. Similarly, person variables, such as emotional state,
can also influence their memory for previous task duration
(Droit-Volet & Gil, 2009). More important to the current re-
search, a person’s motivations can influence remembered dura-
tion; participants were more likely to remember quicker com-
pletion times when they were told that quick task performance
reflected intellectual ability than when they were told that the
task was an innocuous game (Meade, 1963). Also, people with
high intrinsic motivation are more likely than people with low
intrinsic motivation to underestimate how much time has
passed (Conti, 2001). Here we examine whether or not a per-
son’s motivational focus can influence memory for past task
Higgins (1997) proposed that there are two distinct motive-
tional states (regulatory focus), a promotion focus centered on
accomplishments and aspirations and a prevention focus con-
cerned with safety and responsibilities. People with a promo-
tion focus seek gains while people with a prevention focus try
to avoid losses. Motivational focus has been found to influence
cognitive processes such as the ability to learn classification
rules (Markman, Baldwin, & Maddox, 2005) and recognize
previously learned words (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). In general,
people with a promotion focus tend to be more flexible and
inventive in their thought processes (Friedman & Förster, 2001).
Regulatory focus has also been tied to a person’s sense of time,
with shifts in regulatory focus changing perception of distance
to future events (Pennington & Roese, 2003).
Here we examine whether a promotion or prevention focus
influences duration memory for already completed tasks. Shifts
in regulatory focus have been found to cause corresponding
shifts in attentional focus with promotion focus leading to a
broad focus and a prevention focus leading to a narrow a focus
(Förster & Higgins, 2005). For example, participants complet-
ing a Navon (1977) task (an identification task using a large
letter made up of smaller letters) could identify the large letter
quicker in a promotion mode and the small letters quicker in a
prevention mode (Förster, Friedman, Özelsel, & Denzler, 2006;
Förster & Higgins, 2005). A shift in attention can influence
time perception: at times, increasing attention to a task can
cause a corresponding decrease in experienced task duration
(Thomas & Weaver, 1975; Zakay & Block, 1997). Increased
attention to the task can cause participants to pay more attention
to the task and less on time in passing and, as a result, experi-
ence the task as taking less time (Zakay & Block, 1997).
Therefore, a prevention focus (narrow focus on the task) could
cause participants to pay less attention to time in passing and
underestimate duration. A promotion focus (broad focus) would
likely leave more attentional resources available for monitoring
time and lead to longer estimates.
However, attentional models of time estimation (Thomas &
Weaver, 1975) best explain perception for time in passing, and
not memory for past duration (Zakay & Block, 1997). It is pos-
sible that directed attention due to a prevention focus might
cause participants to remember more details of the tasks in
retrospect, with more remembered items or changes making the
task seem to have taken longer. When asked to estimate dura-
tion retrospectively, people may use amount of memory associ-
ated with the task or number of changes remembered to help
estimate task duration (Block & Reed, 1978; Ornstein, 1969;
Zakay & Block, 1997). If a shift in regulatory focus influences
memory for the details of the task, or how many details of the
task are encoded while performing the task, then participants
with a promotion focus (broad attentional focus shifting focus
away from the task) should remember that task as taking less
time than do participants with a prevention focus (narrow fo-
cus). Participants would have paid attention to more of the de-
tails of the task, creating more elaborate memories, which, in
turn, cause longer estimates of duration.
To examine the impact of motivational focus on attention, we
manipulated both participants’ motivational focus and also the
amount of attention that they paid to the task. Attention to the
task was manipulated both indirectly and directly. As an indi-
rect manipulation of attention, level of experience with the task
was varied. As people become more familiar with a task, atten-
tion shifts from the components of the task to the overall out-
comes (Wulf, 2007). A shift in attention could explain why
novices are more likely to overestimate task duration while
experts are more likely to underestimate task duration (Boltz,
Kuppermann, & Dunne, 1998; Hinds, 1999; Roy & Chris-
tenfeld, 2007). For example, Roy and Christenfeld (2007)
found that increasing experience with an origami task led esti-
mation to move from overestimation when participants were
new to the task to underestimation when participants were fa-
miliar with the task. Novices may have paid more attention to
the small details, while experts focused more on end quality.
Consequently, it might be expected that novices would be less
likely to overestimate when given a promotion focus, changing
from a narrow to a broad focus, while experts would be less
likely to underestimate when given a prevention focus, chang-
ing from a broad to a narrow focus.
To directly manipulate participants’ attentional focus, parti-
cipants’ attention was drawn toward or away from the specifics
of the task. Previous research has found that novices seem to do
better on a motor task when their attention is drawn toward the
task while experts tend to do better when their attention is di-
verted away from the task (Beilock, Bertenthal, McCoy, & Carr,
2004). Here, we might expect the effect of a broad focus caused
by a promotion orientation to be lessened when the partici-
pants’ attention is drawn toward the task. In contrast, a narrow
focus, caused by a prevention orientation, might be lessened
when attention is drawn away from the task.
In summary, the aim of this study was to examine the influ-
ence of promotional focus on time estimation. Further, we ex-
amined if the potential influence of promotional focus on bias
in time estimation was caused by a shift in attention paid to the
tasks. Participants performed an origami task while regulatory
focus, amount of experience with the task, and level of attention
towards the task were manipulated. We hypothesized that par-
ticipants with a promotion focus would remember the origami
task as taking less time than someone with a prevention focus
due to a shift in attention away from the details of the task.
Eighty-four students from the University of Heidelberg and
the German Sport University Cologne (40 female) aged 18 - 32
years (M = 24.0) participated voluntarily in this experiment.
Only a few participants had experience making origami objects
and their inclusion did not change the results. Informed consent
was obtained from every participant before commencing the
experiment in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of
Materials and Design
The experiment was a 2 (experience) × 2 (regulatory focus)
× 2 (attention) design. Participants either had no practice mak-
ing origami rabbits (low experience) or made nine practice
rabbits (high experience) before performing two test trials.
Participants then received either a promotion or prevention
manipulation before their first test trial rabbit. Finally, partici-
pants were given an external or internal attention manipulation
before their last test trial with attention directed either away
from or toward the task. The regulatory focus and attention
manipulations were spread out over two trials so that partici-
pants were not overwhelmed with directions. In the end, par-
ticipants were asked to estimate the duration of the last test trial.
The origami task was chosen because, in a pilot study, there
was an interaction between experience and attention for the task
(as in the Beilock et al., 2004, study), with attention away from
the task hurting novices (making them slower) and helping
experts (making them faster) and attention toward the task
helping novices and hurting experts.
Participants first drew lots that determined their condition for
the regulatory focus and attention manipulations. Then partici-
pants either made nine practice rabbits or were not given any
practice. Participants making practice rabbits were given an
example origami rabbit and written instructions to examine.
They were next given the appropriate number of sheets of paper,
a pair of scissors and a pen. The same procedures were fol-
lowed for the participants in the no practice group before they
made their first rabbit.
Participants in the promotion condition (seeking gains) were
verbally told: “If you perform better than 50% of all partici-
pants both in accuracy—evaluated by an origami expert—and
in speed, you will get a lottery ticket.” The lottery ticket was for
the state run lottery giving participants a chance to win millions
of Euros, dependent on luck and the size of the jackpot. The
investigator then held up a lottery ticket for them to view. Par-
ticipants in the prevention condition (avoiding losses) were told:
“If you perform worse than 50% of all participants both in ac-
curacy—evaluated by an origami-expert—and in speed, you
will lose a lottery ticket, which otherwise would be yours.”
Following this instruction, the investigator gave them a lottery
ticket. All participants were given a lottery ticket by the end of
the task. A similar manipulation has been found to alter regula-
tory focus in previous experiments (Maddox, Baldwin, &
Markman, 2005; Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). After the
regulatory focus manipulation, participants were asked to make
an origami rabbit as accurately and quickly as possible. Par-
ticipants were made aware that they would be timed.
The attentional focus manipulation was introduced before the
final trial. Participants in the internal/play-by-play condition
were instructed: “Now I want you to make one more rabbit, but
I want you to describe what you are doing while making the
rabbit—like a play-by-play announcer would on TV. Try not to
let your commentary interrupt the folding of the rabbit.” Par-
ticipants in the external attention condition were instructed: “I
am going to play a tape that has tones on it, high and low, and I
am going to have you monitor the tones while you are making
another rabbit. Here is an example of the two tones.” The in-
vestigator played the tape of the first two tones and stopped the
tape. “What I want you to do is say ‘high’ when you hear the
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 85
high tone and disregard the low tone.” See Beilock, Carr,
MacMahon & Starkes (2002) for a study using a similar ma-
nipulation. In both conditions, the investigator handed the par-
ticipants the materials and timed the trial. After finishing this
second test trial, the participants were asked to estimate in min-
utes and seconds duration of the last trial.
= .06, with participants in the play-by-play (internal) con-
dition (M = 147.0 sec) taking longer than participants in the
tones (external) condition (M = 121.2 sec). There was no main
effect of regulatory focus, and there were no significant 2-way
or 3-way interactions Fs < 1.6, ps > .2.
Unlike previous research (Beilock et al., 2002, 2004), in-
cluding our pilot study, there was no interaction between level
of experience and attentional focus: participants both low and
high in experience performed slower when attention was di-
rected toward the task. It is unclear why, for our experiment,
that drawing attention to the task caused performance to be
worse. It may be, for example, that it was difficult for partici-
pants to find proper terms to describe their actions. To a certain
degree, however, the direction of change in performance due to
the manipulation might not be as important as whether or not
participants recognized that the manipulation altered their per-
An index of estimation bias was created by taking the log of
the ratio of estimated duration to actual duration, which we will
call log proportional error (Roy & Christenfeld, 2007, 2008).
Here, actual duration was the time it took the participant to
complete the second test trial. This index helps to simplify in-
terpretation; a negative score indicates underestimation, a score
of zero indicates perfect accuracy, and a positive score indicates
overestimation. The index also normalizes the data; there was,
as is generally found, a strong positive skew in estimates of
duration. In addition, this index allows a comparison of the bias
in estimates across tasks of different lengths. Effect of Condition on Bias
Of central interest, there was an effect of the regulatory focus
and attention manipulations on bias. A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA on
bias (log proportional error) showed, as has been found previ-
ously (Boltz et al., 1998; Roy & Christenfeld, 2007), a signifi-
cant main effect of experience with low experience participants
more likely to overestimate task duration and high experience
participants more likely to underestimate F(1,76) = 53.8, p
< .001, 2
= .42. There was also a significant two-way inter-
action between focus and attention F(1,76) = 4.41, p = .04, 2
= .06: participants that received both the promotion and internal
focus manipulations were less likely to overestimate task dura-
tion if they had low experience with the task and were more
likely to underestimate duration if they had high experience
(see Table 1). Simple effect tests indicate that participants with
a promotion focus were significantly more biased toward un-
derestimation in the internal condition (M = .061) than in the
external condition (M = .032, p = .044, = .05) and that
participants with an internal focus tended to be more biased
toward underestimation when they had a promotion focus rather
than a prevention focus (M = .027, p = .056 = .05). Other
simple effects were not significant (ps > .3). Overall, partici-
pants in the promotion condition were more likely to be biased
towards underestimation in the internal condition. All other
main effects and interactions for bias (log proportional error)
were not significant (Fs < 1.1, ps > .3). While previous research
Results and Discussion
Effect of Condition on Performance
While we were mainly interested in the influence of motive-
tional focus on bias, we first examined the influence of the
manipulations on actual duration. Differences in task duration
can cause corresponding shifts in bias (Roy & Christenfeld,
On the first test trial, participants in the low experience con-
dition took 234.6 sec to make the origami rabbit, while partici-
pants in the high experience condition took 94.8 sec (see Table
1 for full results). A 2 (experience) × 2 (regulatory focus)
ANOVA on actual duration revealed a significant difference in
time needed to complete the task due to level of experience F(1,
80) = 132.1, p < .001, = .62. There was no effect of the
regulatory focus manipulation on time needed to complete the
task and no interaction between focus and expertise, Fs < .5, ps
> .5.
For the second trial, a 2 (experience) × 2 (regulatory focus) ×
2 (attention) ANOVA on actual duration indicated a significant
main effect of experience F(1,76) = 18.6, p < .001, 2
= .20,
with low experience participants (M = 159.6 sec) taking longer
than high experience participants (M = 108.0 sec). Here, there
was also a main effect of attention F(1,76) = 5.19, p = .026,
Table 1.
Time needed (in seconds) to complete the first rabbit, the second rabbit, the estimated duration for the second rabbit, and bias (log proportional error)
for the estimate (with standard error).
Experience Level Regulatory FocusAttentional FocusActual Duration First TrialActual Duration
Second Trial
Estimated Duration
Second Trial Bias (LPE)
Internal 226.8 (27.6) 171.0 (19.8) 232.8 (45.6) .07 (.07)
Promotion External 231.0 (11.4) 162.0 (13.2) 223.8 (21.6) .14 (.03)
Internal 252.0 (22.8) 166.2 (10.8) 228.0 (23.4) .13 (.02)
Low Experience
Prevention External 228.0 (28.2) 139.2 (14.4) 190.2 (30.0) .12 (.04)
Internal 87.0 (7.8) 112.8 (10.8) 73.8 (7.8) .19 (.05)
Promotion External 96.0 (10.2) 99.0 (7.2) 85.8 (9.6) .07 (.03)
Internal 100.8 (13.8) 142.2 (28.8) 121.8 (24.0) .07 (.05)
High Experience
Prevention External 91.8 (8.4) 91.2 (9.0) 67.8 (9.0) .15 (.05)
has found that task duration can affect size of bias (Roy &
Christenfeld, 2008), adding actual task duration as a covariate
to the above analysis did not alter the results.
It is possible that the increased tendency to underestimate
when the promotion and internal focus conditions were com-
bined was because participants with a promotion motivation did
not account for the fact that performing the play-by-play condi-
tion forced them to take longer at the task. In support, when
given both the promotion and internal focus manipulations,
participants’ overall error (absolute value of the difference be-
tween their estimate and the actual duration) was smaller when
their estimate was compared to their first trial, M = 40.2 sec,
than when compared to their second trial (which they were
actually estimating), M = 67.2 sec, t(20) = 2.13, p = .04, d = .46.
However, this same relationship was not true in the other three
conditions: there was no significant difference in overall error
when comparing participants’ estimates to either completion
time (ps > .4). In the promotion condition, estimated duration
appeared to be more influenced by previous trials than the trial
that was actually being estimated.
General Discussion
While regulatory focus did influence time perception with a
shift in attention likely causing this influence, the connection
between motivation and attention were not as we originally
envisioned. We thought that having a promotion or prevention
focus might cause a shift in attention to the task at more of a
micro level, with people high in prevention paying more atten-
tion to the small details of the tasks. Instead, a shift in regula-
tory focus appears to influence attention to the task at more of a
macro level: participants with a promotion focus did not pay
attention to changes in the task that caused it to take longer.
Given that previous research has found that people with a
promotion focus are more attuned to the big picture and not the
small details (Förster & Higgins, 2005), we speculated that a
promotion focus would change how participants experienced
the details of the task. Participants might have been less likely
to attend to the specifics of the tasks causing longer estimates
due to decreased attention spent monitoring time in passing
(Thomas & Weaver, 1975; Zakay & Block, 1997) or partici-
pants might have remembered less specifics of the task causing
shorter estimates due to less attention paid to details of the task
during performance (Block & Reed, 1978; Ornstein, 1969;
Zakay & Block, 1997). However, these explanations are not
consistent with our finding that the tendency toward underesti-
mation was greatest only when a promotion focus was com-
bined with an internal focus. If motivational focus influenced
attention or memory for the specifics of the task, then bias
should have been largest when focus was very broad (promo-
tion and external focus) or very narrow (prevention and internal
focus). Instead, there was a differential effect of promotion
focus for the internal and external conditions indicating that the
results cannot simply be explained in terms of participants pay-
ing less attention or remembering less of the specifics of the
The influence of a promotion focus was only evident on the
task at a macro level that included the participants’ full experi-
ence with the task. The tendency to remember the origami task
as being shorter when given both the promotion and internal
focus manipulations can be explained by insufficient adjust-
ment from previous experience with the task. The internal focus
manipulation caused participants to take longer on the task or,
in the case of participants with low experience, improve less.
Participants did not seem to take this into account retrospect-
tively when they had a promotion focus, which causes people to
look at the big picture and not the details (Förster & Higgins,
2005). Therefore, if participants were trying to reconstruct their
memory by focusing first on what they consider the prototypi-
cal duration of the task and then adjusting for aspects of the
task that might have made it take longer or shorter (Bartlett,
1932; Burt, 1992), a promotion focus appears to have caused
them to make an insufficient adjustment from the prototype.
Participants with a prevention focus, who likely paid more at-
tention to changes in the task, were able to make a sufficient
adjustment. When a promotion focus was combined with an
internal focus, which increased task duration, participants re-
membered the task as taking less time than did others with
similar experience. In contrast, when a promotion focus was
combined with an external focus, which did not alter task com-
pletion times, there was no shift in bias. Attention, or lack of
attention to be precise, to changes in the task led to bias in re-
membered duration.
The results of the current study indicate that a person’s mo-
tivational focus can influence their memory for task duration.
This seems to be limited to situations where the task takes
longer or shorter than it has previously. Participants who were
focused on seeking gains appeared to ignore the circumstances
that caused a change in the task and, therefore, were more
likely to differ in bias from others. Participants that were high
in experience with making origami rabbits were most likely to
underestimate the duration. For novices with origami task, the
shift in regulatory focus actually led to a more positive outcome
with a promotion focus leading to a decrease in the tendency to
We thank Nina Heinen, Katharina Kurz, Katharina Mayerle,
Ekaterini Nasta, Martina Herma, Saskia Sekanina and Teresa
Stegmüller for their help collecting the data.
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social
psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002).
When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of di-
vided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced per-
formance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 8, 6-16. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.1.6
Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., & Carr, T. H. (2004).
Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention,
and speed versus accuracy in performing sensory motor skills. Psy-
chonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 373-379. doi:10.3758/BF03196585
Block, R. A., & Reed, M. A. (1978). Remernbered duration: Evidence
for a contextual-change hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 656-665.
Block, R. A., & Zakay, D. (1997). Prospective and retrospective dura-
tions judgments: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 4, 184-197. doi:10.3758/BF03209393
Boltz, M. G., Kuppermann, C., & Dunne, J. (1998). The role of
learn-ing in remembered duration. Memory & Cognition, 26,
903-921. doi:10.3758/BF03201172
Burt, C. D. B. (1992). Reconstruction of the duration of autobiographi-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
cal events. Memory and Co g nition, 20, 124-132.
Conti, R. (2001). Time flies: Investigating the connection between
intrinsic motivation and the experience of time. Journal of Personal-
ity, 69, 1-26. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00134
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic
inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision making. Organ-
izational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 69, 117-132.
Droit-Volet, S., & Gil, S. (2009). The time-emotion paradox. Philoso-
phical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1943-1953.
Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global vs. local processing
fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 1 6 , 631-636.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., Özelsel, A., & Denzler, M. (2006). Enact-
ment of approach and avoidance behavior influences the scope of
perceptual and conceptual attention. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42, 133-146. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.02.004
Fraisse, P. (1963). The psychology of time. New York: Harper & Row.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and
prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 1001-1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psy-
chologist, 52, 1280-1013. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and
debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205-221.
Markman, A. B., Baldwin, G. C., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). The inter-
action of payoff structure and regulatory focus in classification. Psy-
chological Science, 16, 852-855.
Meade, R. D. (1963). Effect of motivation and progress on the estima-
tion of longer time intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65,
564-567. doi:10.1037/h0046552
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global fea-
tures in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
Ornstein, R. E. (1969). On the experience of time. Middlesex: Penguin
Books. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and tempo-
ral distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563-576.
Roy, M. M., & Christenfeld, N .J. S. (2007). Bias in memory predicts
bias in estimation of future task duration. Memory & Cognition, 35,
557-564. doi:10.3758/BF03193294
Roy, M. M., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2008). Effect of task length on
remembered and predicted duration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
15, 202-207. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.202
Roy, M. M., Christenfeld, N. J. S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2005).
Underestimation of future duration: Memory incorrectly used or
memory bias. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 738-756.
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy × value effects: Regula-
tory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 447-458.
Thomas, E. A. C., & Weaver, W. B. (1975). Cognitive processing and
time perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 17 , 363-367.
Vierordt, K. (1868). Der zeitsinn nach versuchen. Tubingen: H. Laupp.
Wearden, J. H., Norton, R., Martin, S., & Montford-Bebb, O. (2007).
Internal clock processes and the filled-duration illusion. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33,
716-729. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.716
Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning. Leeds: Human
Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological S cience, 6, 12-16.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 87