task accuracies and latencies would have been bimo-relatively automatic or strategic. For example, automatic dal, with participants who monitored having a lower or strategic processes thought to underlie recognition average accuracy and a higher average latency than memory (e.g., Mandler, 1980; Sternberg, 1969) could participants who did not monitor. Neither frequency play a role. Alternatively, some aspect of memory re-distribution appeared to be bimodal, however, con-trieval as postulated by the Automatic Associative sistent with the expectation that participants main-Activation view or the Noticing + Search view (Einstein tained the cognitive system in a prospective memory & McDaniel, 1996) could be the process by which the retrieval mode (or maintained an increased level of ac-evaluation is made. Finally, to the extent that the ACT tivation of the prospective memory representation) architecture (J. R. Anderson, 1983) can account for but did not check for the target events on alternating strategic monitoring, the firing of production rules control trials. could explain the process of checking. Although these A significant difference in prospective memory various possible conceptions of the checking process accuracy or latency was not expected (and was not allow that checking may be automatic or strategic, the obtained) as a function of whether the experimental and reaction time task costs on experimental trials relative control trials alternated or were blocked. The two-to alternating control trials in the current experiment process view of strategic monitoring, as well as the suggest that checking was relatively strategic, at least alternate one-process views, predict that strategic in the current experiment. monitoring should be equivalent on the alternating and blocked experimental trials. The views make different predictions only with regard to the processes that ALTERNATE ONE-PROCESS should be involved on the alternating versus blocked INTERPRETATIONS control trials, where prospective memory cannot be measured (i.e., because there is no prospective memory Although the two-process monitoring view provides a task on control trials). compelling explanation of the current results, the results are open to alternate one-process interpretations. One possibility is that the costs on the experimental trials CHECKING and the alternating control trials relative to the blocked control trials reflect only a process of maintaining a The current experiment was not designed to test alter-retrieval mode (or activation): Participants maintained a nate conceptions of the checking process, but several retrieval mode (or activation) to a greater extent on possible conceptions are outlined here. Depending on experimental trials than alternating control trials, and to the characteristics of the prospective memory task, the a greater extent on alternating control trials than blocked cover task in which it is embedded, and the individual control trials, where they were not expected to maintain doing the strategic monitoring, the process of directing a retrieval mode at all (or at least to a much lesser extent). attention to the stimuli could be controlled by the envi-This seems unlikely, because research has suggested ronment and be relatively automatic or reflexive on the that a retrieval mode or an increased level of activation part of the individual (e.g., an exogenous orienting re-persists as long as the goal to perform the retrieval task sponse; Lauwereyns, 1998), or instead it could be con-exists, and there was no reason to expect that a retrieval trolled by the individual or a SAS or other type of mode or activation on alternating control trials would executive attentional system (e.g., an endogenous ori-be maintained to a lesser extent than on experimental enting response; Lauwereyns, 1998). Alternatively, trials. some aspect of automatic memory retrieval, such as Another possibility is that the costs on the automatic associative retrieval of the intended action, experimental trials and the alternating control trials which results from conscious processing of the target relative to the blocked control trials reflect only a event with which it was associated at encoding (as pos-process of checking: Participants checked for the target tulated by the Automatic Associative Activation view events to a greater extent on experimental trials than of prospective memory; Einstein & McDaniel, 1996), or on alternating control trials, and to a greater extent on a feeling of familiarity or significance for the target event alternating control trials than on blocked control trials, that causes the target event to be noticed (as postu-where they were not expected to check at all. This lated by the Noticing + Search view of prospective seems unlikely, because checking was costly, and a memory; Einstein & McDaniel, 1996), could direct at-signal was given to indicate that no target event would tention to the stimuli. appear on the control trials and that checking was The process of evaluating whether a stimulus is a therefore unnecessary, so there was no reason to retrieval cue for an intended action could also be expect checking on any control trials.