Executive processes, memory accuracy, and memory monitoring: An aging and individual difference analysis q Matthew G. Rhodes * , Colleen M. Kelley Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1270, USA Received 31 August 2004; revision received 21 January 2005 Available online 3 March 2005 Abstract The current study examined the neuropsychological correlates of memory accuracy in older and younger adults. Par- ticipants were tested in a memory monitoring paradigm developed by Koriat and Goldsmith (1996), which permits sep- arate assessments of the accuracy of responses generated during retrieval and the accuracy of monitoring those responses. Participants were also administered a battery of tests designed to measure executive functioning and speed of processing. Results indicated that both age and executive measures were predictive of accuracy, while speed of pro- cessing measures accounted for little of the variability in accuracy. Path analyses demonstrated that a substantial por- tion of the effect of executive function measures on memory accuracy in free report was mediated by the quantity of correct responses available in forced report, which in turn was partially mediated by monitoring accuracy. These data suggest that individual differences in executive function are important in memory accuracy. Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Memory; Metamemory; Memory monitoring; Aging; Executive function Introduction The quality of oneÕs memory has traditionally been characterized in terms of the quantity of ideas or the number of aspects of events that are recalled. However, memory accuracy has been the subject of growing inter- est (see Koriat, Goldsmith, & Pansky, 2000; Roediger, 1996 for reviews) with a particular focus on errors of commission. For example, memory accuracy can be quite low after the introduction of misleading post-event information (e.g., Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978), after studying texts that introduce strong inferences (e.g., Owens, Bower, & Black, 1979), and in paradigms such as the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995), or DRM paradigm, in which studying lists of associates of a central, nonpresented item induces high levels of false recall. In Journal of Memory and Language 52 (2005) 578–594 www.elsevier.com/locate/jml Journal of Memory and Language 0749-596X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.014 q Parts of this research were included in a Dissertation submitted to The Florida State University by Matthew G. Rhodes. We thank the other members of the dissertation committee, Michelle Bourgeios, Neil Charness, Katinka Dijk- stra, and Ashby Plant for their helpful comments throughout the course of the research. We also thank John Dunlosky and Morris Goldsmith for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript. We are indebted to Matthew Campioni, Justin Crowe, Mary Currie, Kristy McDaniel, Kathleen Muller, Lisa Spaulding, and Cicely Procipio for their assistance in testing subjects. * Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. E-mail address: mrhodes@artsci.wustl.edu (M.G. Rhodes).