

































61

Graduate Student Journal of Psychology
2022, Vol. 19

Copyright 2022 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University

EǓǾȅȖΡ�^Ǔǹǟে�ГǉƺǉΡ�ƺǿǏ��ȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�XƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ
Genna M. Mashinchi  and  Craig Ravesloot,

Rural Institute for Disabilities, University of Montana

KǈǴǓǉȠǩΚǓॸ�eǦǩș�șȠȣǏΡ�ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓș�ȠǦǓ�ȖǓǹƺȠǩȅǿșǦǩȒș�ǈǓȠΛǓǓǿ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡॹ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�শE^�ষॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǉȅǾǾȣ-
nity participation among older adults. 
Method: 203 United States older adults (age 55+) were recruited through MTurk to complete surveys and a memory 
task. A multiple linear regression was used to regress MSE and community participation. 
Main Findings: Entering all variables into the model explained 45% of the variance in community participation (R2 = 
ঀࢶࢵॹ��ǏǴঀ�[ࢳ�઀�ঀࢲࢵॹ�'শࢸॹࢲࢵࢲ�ষ�e�઀ࢷࢲ�ঀࢷࢳॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�ঀࢲࢱࢱষঀ�E^��Λƺș�ȒȅșǩȠǩΚǓǹΡ�ȖǓǹƺȠǓǏ�Ƞȅ�ǉȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�শݾ�઀�ঀࢹࢴॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�
ঀࢲࢱࢱষॹ�ƺș�ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠǓǏঀ�/ȅΛǓΚǓȖॹ�ǉȅǿȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǓșॹ�ΛȅȖșǓ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�শݾ�઀�েঀࢳࢳॹ�Ȓ�઀�ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�ƺǿǏ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�
ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠইǉȅǿǉǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠ�শݾ�઀�ঀࢷࢳॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠǓǏ�ǦǩǠǦǓȖ�ǹǓΚǓǹș�ȅǟ�ǉȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩȅǿঀ�
Conclusions: It is reasonable to conclude that one’s beliefs about their memory ability is an important consideration 
when one chooses to engage in community events. 
?ǲͧ͡ȤȵǮȸ࣒�ȝǲȝȤȵͧ�ȸǲȘǾणǲϭǨǙǨ࣓ͧ�ǨȤȝȝɂȞȈȿͧ�ȱǙȵȿȈǨȈȱǙȿȈȤȞ࣓�ǙǿȈȞǿ࣓�ǮǲȝǲȞȿȈǙ࣓��ȘͬȅǲȈȝǲȵहȸ�ǮȈȸǲǙȸǲࣚ�

 As the world’s older adult population grows, old-
er individuals are susceptible to a heightened risk of 
experiencing age-related cognitive challenges, such as 
dementia (Aartsen et al., 2002, Fritsch et al., 2005). 
To help combat this growing problem, researchers 
have worked to identify factors that can support or 
improve cognitive functioning. One such factor that 
has gathered extensive support in the literature is 
participation in community leisure activities, such 
as ones that include social engagement (e.g., attend-
ing events with friends, having dinner with friends, 
participating in a card game group; Fratiglioni et al., 
2004; Scarmeas et al., 2001; Sobral & Paúl, 2013; Ver-
ghese et al., 2003). However, participating in these 
ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș�ǉƺǿ�ǈǓ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠ� ǩǟ�ȅǿǓ�Ǧƺș�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾ-
bering or concentrating, which might impair their 
ability to track a conversation, answer questions, or 
carry out multi-step instructions to complete an ac-
tivity (Cowan, 2014). Additionally, if one feels that 
their cognitive abilities are poor, they might be more 
likely to avoid these activities, instead choosing to iso-
ǹƺȠǓ� ȠǦǓǾșǓǹΚǓș� Ƞȅ� ǈΡȒƺșș� ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿǉǩǿǠ� ǏǩГǉȣǹȠǩǓș� ȅȖ�
feelings (Nieboer et al, 2020). To examine this idea 
further, the present study examined the relationships 
ǈǓȠΛǓǓǿ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡॹ� ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡॹ�
and community participation among older adults.
EǓǾȅȖΡ�^Ǔǹǟে�ГǉƺǉΡ
� EǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�শE^�ষ�ǩș�ǏǓЙǿǓǏ�ƺș�ȠǦǓ�ǈǓǹǩǓǟș�
an individual holds about their memory ability (Lalitha 
& Aswartha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; 
Sawin, 2021). The concept of MSE stems from Ban-
ǏȣȖƺঢ়ș�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ȠǦǓȅȖΡॹ�ΛǦǩǉǦ�ȖǓǟǓȖș�Ƞȅ�ƺǿ�ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣ-

al’s self-perception of their ability to organize and exe-
cute tasks under given conditions (Bandura, 1997). In 
line with past research that has supported the positive 
relationship between MSE and memory performance, 
�ƺǿǏȣȖƺ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩΦǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȠǦȅșǓ�ΛǩȠǦ�ǹȅΛ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�
perform poorer on tasks, compared to those with high-
ǓȖ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�শ�ƺǿǏȣȖƺॹࢺࢹࢺࢲ�আ��ǓƺȣǏȅǩǿ�૭��ǓșȖǩǉǦ-
ard, 2011). As Bandura notes, this poorer performance 
occurs as those who doubt their ability to carry out a 
task are less invested in the tasks, which results in less 
ǓАȅȖȠॹ�ȒǓȖșǩșȠǓǿǉǓॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǾȅȠǩΚƺȠǩȅǿআ�șǓȠȠǩǿǠ�ǹȅΛǓȖ�Ǡȅƺǹș�
for themselves; experiencing higher anxiety; and com-
mitting less to accomplish these goals (Beaudoin & 
Desrichard, 2011; Lalitha & Aswartha Reddy, 2021).
 MSE is an important construct within metamem-
ory that has been used to explain the cognitive decline 
that occurs with aging (Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; 
/ǓȖȠΦȅǠ�ǓȠ�ƺǹঀॹࢸࢹࢺࢲষঀ�XƺșȠ�ȖǓșǓƺȖǉǦ�Ǧƺș�ǩǏǓǿȠǩЙǓǏ�ƺ�ǉȅȖ-
relation between MSE and memory task performance 
for older adults, with higher MSE associated with bet-
ter memory performance (Lalitha & Aswartha Reddy, 
2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sawin, 2021). Other 
studies have found evidence that higher MSE is pre-
dictive of memory performance in cases of both labo-
ratory and simulated-everyday episodic memory tasks 
(Turvey et al., 2000; West et al., 1996). In addition to 
being positively related to memory performance, such 
that low MSE is related to poor memory performance 
(Beaudoin & Desrichard, 2011; Lalitha & Aswar-
tha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; Sawin, 
2021), MSE has been found to be negatively related 
to beliefs about forgetting, such that stronger beliefs 



62

about forgetting and aging being related was associat-
ed with lower MSE (Vallet et al., 2015). In addition to 
being related to one’s ability to remember, MSE has 
been shown to be related to one’s ability to complete 
șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșঀ�^ƺǹǩǿƺș�শࢲࢳࢱࢳষ�ǟȅȣǿǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ǩș�
related to self-management behaviors in older adults 
who live alone. Similarly, Vellone et al. (2016) found 
ȠǦƺȠ�ǩǿ�ȠǦȅșǓ�ΛǩȠǦ�ǩǾȒƺǩȖǓǏ�ǉȅǠǿǩȠǩȅǿॹ�ȅǿǓঢ়ș�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺ-
cy in being able to care for themselves was an import-
ƺǿȠ� ǟƺǉȠȅȖ� ȠǦƺȠ� ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓǏ� șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ� ƺǈǩǹǩȠǩǓșঀ� 2ǿ� ǟƺǉȠॹ�
ȅǿǓঢ়ș� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ǾǓǏǩƺȠǓǏ� ȠǦǓ� ȖǓǹƺȠǩȅǿșǦǩȒ� ǈǓȠΛǓǓǿ�
working memory ability and self-care ability, illustrat-
ǩǿǠ� ȠǦǓ� ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓ� ȅǟ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ� ǓΚǓǿ�ΛǦǓǿ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�
ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ǩș� ȒȅȅȖঀ�(ǩΚǓǿ� ȠǦǓșǓ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠșॹ�tǓǹǹȅǿǓ� ǓȠ� ƺǹঀ�
recommended interventions that could increase self-ef-
ЙǉƺǉΡ� ƺǿǏॹ� ǩǿ� ȠȣȖǿॹ� ǩǾȒȖȅΚǓ� șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓঀ� �ǏǏǩȠǩȅǿƺǹǹΡॹ�
ȒƺșȠ�ȖǓșǓƺȖǉǦ�ƺȒȒǓƺȖș�Ƞȅ�șȣǠǠǓșȠ�ƺ�ǠǓǿǏǓȖ�ǏǩАǓȖǓǿǉǓ�ǩǿ�
MSE, with Fallan and Opstad (2016), Huang (2012), 
ƺǿǏ� vǓșȠ� ǓȠ� ƺǹঀ� শࢳࢱࢱࢳষ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠ� ȠǦƺȠ� ǾƺǹǓș� ȖǓȒȅȖȠǓǏ�
ǦǩǠǦǓȖ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡॹ� ƺǿǏ�ΛǓȖǓ�ǾȅȖǓ� ǹǩǷǓǹΡ� Ƞȅ� ȅΚǓȖǓșȠǩ-
mate their abilities, when completing cognitive tasks.
Working Memory
 Working memory is a memory/executive func-
tioning ability that allows one to actively hold and ma-
nipulate information for a brief amount of time, such 
as reordering numbers or completing mathematical 
problems (Aben et al., 2012; Cowan, 2008; McCabe 
et al., 2010; Miyake & Shah, 1999). Working memory 
has been measured in multiple ways, primarily with 
mental arithmetic or digit span tasks (Wechsler, 2008). 
 Due to its role in planning, working memo-
ry ability is needed to complete vital self-care tasks, 
such as remembering to take medications or remem-
bering that one took the medications. In fact, In-
sel et al. (2006) found that working memory tasks 
ƺǿǏ� ǓΠǓǉȣȠǩΚǓ� ǟȣǿǉȠǩȅǿ� ΛǓȖǓ� ȠǦǓ� ȅǿǹΡ� șǩǠǿǩЙǉƺǿȠ�
predictors in a model used to predict medication 
ƺǏǦǓȖǓǿǉǓঀ� XȅȅȖ� ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ǉƺǿ� ƺǹșȅ� ƺАǓǉȠ�
an individual’s participation in the community, as 
working memory is necessary for several aspects of 
social-cognitive information processing, including 
tracking a conversation, the information presented, 
relationships between others, names just learned, and 
others’ feelings towards topics (Meyer et al., 2012).

Present Study
Although past research has explored the relationship 
between MSE and memory ability in general (Lalitha 
& Aswartha Reddy, 2021; Pearman & Trujillo, 2013; 
Sawin, 2021), to the best of the authors’ knowledge, 
only two studies have appeared to examine the relation-
ship between MSE and working memory. One study, 
ǉȅǿǏȣǉȠǓǏ�ǈΡ�/ȅАǾƺǿ�ƺǿǏ�^ǉǦȖƺΛ�শࢸࢱࢱࢳষॹ�ǩǿΚǓșȠǩǠƺȠ-
ǓǏ�ȠǦǓ�ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓ�ȅǟ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ƺǿǏ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�
ȅǿ�ǾƺȠǦǓǾƺȠǩǉƺǹ�ȒȖȅǈǹǓǾেșȅǹΚǩǿǠ�ȒǓȖǟȅȖǾƺǿǉǓঀ�/ȅА-
Ǿƺǿ�ƺǿǏ�^ǉǦȖƺΛ�ǟȅȣǿǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�Λƺș�ǈǓǿǓЙǉǩƺǹ�
as demands on working memory increased, and these 
ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȒȖȅȒȅșǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȅǿǓঢ়ș�ƺǈǩǹǩȠΡ�Ƞȅ�ǓГǉǩǓǿȠǹΡ�ƺǿǏ�
șȠȖƺȠǓǠǩǉƺǹǹΡ�șȅǹΚǓ�ȒȖȅǈǹǓǾș�ǩǿǉȖǓƺșǓǏ�ΛǩȠǦ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡঀ�
Additionally, Mashinchi et al. (2022) used a hierarchi-
cal regression analysis and found that MSE explained a 
large, unique portion of variance in working memory 
ability after controlling for age, depression, and anxiety.
 Further, the authors of the present study are un-
aware of any research that has investigated the relation-
ship between MSE and community participation. This 
șȠȣǏΡ�șȅȣǠǦȠ�Ƞȅ�Йǹǹ�ȠǦǩș�ǠƺȒ�ǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�ǹǩȠǓȖƺȠȣȖǓ�ǈΡ�ǓΠƺǾ-
ining the relationship between MSE and community 
participation. Hypotheses are as follows: 1) MSE and 
working memory ability will be positively correlated 
ΛǩȠǦ�ǉȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�ΛǦǩǹǓ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ǩǿ�ǉȅǾ-
ȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷș�ƺǿǏ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠ�ƺǿǏ�
concentrating will be negatively correlated with com-
munity participation, with all variables having statisti-
ǉƺǹǹΡ�șǩǠǿǩЙǉƺǿȠ�ǩǿǏǓȒǓǿǏǓǿȠ�ǓАǓǉȠș�ȅǿ�ǉȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ȒƺȖ-
ȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩȅǿআ�ƺǿǏࢳ�ষ�ǿȅȠǩǉǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ǉǦƺǿǠǓșॹ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�
ǩǿ�ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖ-
ing and concentrating will all be negatively correlated 
with MSE while working memory ability will be pos-
itively correlated with MSE, with all variables having 
șȠƺȠǩșȠǩǉƺǹǹΡ� șǩǠǿǩЙǉƺǿȠ� ǩǿǏǓȒǓǿǏǓǿȠ� ǓАǓǉȠș� ȅǿ� E^�ঀ

Method
Participants
 Participants were all United States residents over 
the age of 55 and were recruited through MTurk, an 
online community that completes surveys for mone-
ȠƺȖΡ� ȖǓΛƺȖǏșঀ��ǿ�EeȣȖǷ�ЙǹȠǓȖ�Λƺș�ƺȒȒǹǩǓǏ� Ƞȅ�ǓǿșȣȖǓ�
that all participants were United States residents. An 
EeȣȖǷ�ƺǠǓ�ЙǹȠǓȖ�Λƺș�ƺȒȒǹǩǓǏॹ� șȣǉǦ� ȠǦƺȠ�ȅǿǹΡ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩ-
ȒƺǿȠș�ȠǦƺȠ�ЙȠ�ΛǩȠǦǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�ƺǠǓ�ȒƺȖƺǾǓȠǓȖ�ȅǟࢶࢶ��ƺǿǏ�ȅǹǏǓȖ�
were able to participate in the study. In order to partic-
ipate in the study, potential participants had to achieve 

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 



63

MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

an approved task completion rate (HIT rate) of 95%, 
meaning that they had to demonstrate worker quali-
ty by being approved by 95% of the researchers that 
they had completed studies for in the past. Participants 
were excluded if they reported an age that was not 
over 55, if more than 5% of their data were missing, 
or if their data did not appear to be of high quality. 
Two hundred and three eligible participants consent-
ed to participate in the study. One participant did not 
complete the demographic questionnaire but was in-
ǉǹȣǏǓǏ�ǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�Йǿƺǹ�ƺǿƺǹΡșǩșঀ���੢ࢱঀࢱࢶ�ǾȅǿǓȠƺȖΡ� ǩǿǉǓǿ-
tive was awarded to participants in exchange for their 
time. An a priori power analysis for a linear multiple 
ȖǓǠȖǓșșǩȅǿॹ� ЙΠǓǏ� ǾȅǏǓǹॹ� șǩǿǠǹǓ� ȖǓǠȖǓșșǩȅǿ� ǉȅǓГǉǩǓǿȠ�
was conducted on G*Power 3.1. This power analysis 
was two-tailed, the alpha error probability was set to 
.05, and the desired power was set to .95. Results of 
this analysis yielded a sample size of at least 89 partic-
ipants would be needed to achieve these parameters.  

Assessments and Measures
Demographics
           Self-reported demographic information regard-
ing age, gender, ethnicity, and educational attainment 
was collected from each participant. In the analyses, 
gender was binary coded, with 1 = male and 2 = fe-
male. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate 
(yes/no) if they had noticed their ability to remember 
things had changed over the years. Further, partici-
pants completed the Washington Group Short Set of 
Questions on Disability (Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention [CDC], 2015), which queries any dif-
ЙǉȣǹȠΡ� ΛǩȠǦ� șǓǓǩǿǠॹ� ǦǓƺȖǩǿǠॹ� ΛƺǹǷǩǿǠॹ� ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠই
concentrating, communicating, and/or completing 
self-care tasks using a 4-point Likert scale with 1 = no 
ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ƺǿǏࢵ��઀�ǉƺǿǿȅȠ�Ǐȅ�ƺȠ�ƺǹǹঀ�eǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡ�
analyzed the data for items pertaining to remember-
ing/concentrating and completing self-care tasks.
 
EǲȝȤȵͧ�^ǲȘǾण�ϭǨǙǨͧ�
            To assess participants’ MSE, the present study 
ȣșǓǏ� ƺǿ� ƺǏƺȒȠƺȠǩȅǿ� ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ� EǓǾȅȖΡ� ^Ǔǹǟে�ГǉƺǉΡ�
Questionnaire (MSEQ; Berry et al., 1989), which is 
designed to assess participants’ prediction of their 
memory ability. The authors of the present study 
adapted the MSEQ by including only the MSEQ’s 
ǏǩǠǩȠ� ȖǓǉƺǹǹ� ǩȠǓǾșঀ� 'ȣȖȠǦǓȖॹ� ȠǦǓ� ǩȠǓǾș� ΛǓȖǓ� ǾȅǏǩЙǓǏ�
Ƞȅ�șȒǓǉǩЙǉƺǹǹΡ�ƺșǷ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺǿȠș�Ƞȅ�ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠ�ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǾǓǾȅ-

ry ability on the forward, backward, and sequencing 
conditions of the digit span memory task (adapted 
from Wechsler, 2008). The present study’s measure of 
E^��Λƺș� ǟȅȣǿǏ� Ƞȅ�ǈǓ�ǦǩǠǦǹΡ� ȖǓǹǩƺǈǹǓ� শݽ�઀� ঀࢴࢺষॹ�ΛǩȠǦ�
alpha levels for each of the conditions as follows: 
ǟȅȖΛƺȖǏ� শݽ�઀� ঀࢹࢸষॹ�ǈƺǉǷΛƺȖǏ� শݽ�઀� ঀࢸࢹষॹ� ƺǿǏ� șǓȕȣǓǿǉ-
ǩǿǠ� শݽ� ઀� ঀࢺࢸষঀ� ^ǓǓ�eƺǈǹǓ� �ࢲ ǟȅȖ� ǩȠǓǾș� ƺǿǏ� ǩȠǓǾ�ǾǓƺǿș

Community Participation
 To assess community participation, participants 
were administered the ten-item “Undertaking Activi-
ties” section of the Maastricht Social Participation Pro-
ЙǹǓ�শE^XXআ�EƺȖș�ǓȠ�ƺǹঀॹࢺࢱࢱࢳ�ষঀ�eǦǩș�șǓǉȠǩȅǿ�ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓș�
ǈȅȠǦ� ǉȅǿșȣǾȒȠǩΚǓ� ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�ৄ�ΛǦǩǉǦ� ǩș� ǏǓЙǿǓǏ�
ƺș� ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș� ȠǦƺȠ� ƺǹǹȅΛ� ƺǿ� ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣƺǹ� Ƞȅ� ǈǓǿǓЙȠ� ǟȖȅǾ�
ȠǦǓ�ȅАǓȖǩǿǠș�ȅǟ�șȅǉǩǓȠΡ�শǓঀǠঀॹ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩǿǠ�ǩǿ�ƺ�ǉȅȣȖșǓ�
or eating at a restaurant) — and formal social partic-
ǩȒƺȠǩȅǿ�ৄ�ΛǦǩǉǦ�ǩș�ǏǓЙǿǓǏ�ƺș�ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș�ȠǦƺȠ�ƺǹǹȅΛ�ƺǿ�
ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣƺǹ�Ƞȅ�ȅАǓȖ�ƺ�ǉȅǿȠȖǩǈȣȠǩȅǿ�Ƞȅ�șȅǉǩǓȠΡ�শǓঀǠঀॹ�ȒƺȖ-
ticipating in organized volunteer work or organized 
clubs; Mars et al., 2009). The ten items asked partic-
ipants to indicate the frequency with which they par-
ȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǓǏ� ǩǿ� șȒǓǉǩЙǉ� ǉȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ� ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ�ȒƺșȠ�
four weeks. The present study used a 4-point Likert 
scale as follows: 1 = not at all, 2 = less than once a week, 
3 = once or twice a week, and 4 = more than twice a 
week. The MSPP has been found to have strong con-
vergent validity and discriminant validity with the 
Frenchay Activities Index, which is a measure of par-
ticipation, similar to the MSPP (Mars et al., 2009)..

Working Memory Ability
 Given the novelty of this project, the authors 
sought to use a reliable working memory task that 
has strong psychometric properties (Wechsler, 2008). 
Thus, a digit span task was used. This digit span task 
was similar to the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- 
Fourth Edition Working Memory Index (WAIS-IV; 
Wechsler, 2008). In the present study, the digit strings 
ȒȖǓșǓǿȠǓǏ� Ƞȅ� ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺǿȠș� ǏǩАǓȖǓǏ� ǟȖȅǾ� ȠǦǓ� șȠȖǩǿǠș�
presented in the WAIS-IV, but the procedure was 
similar. The digits for this study’s task were present-
ed on screen, making this a visual working memory 
task, whereas the WAIS-IV’s Digit Span Task is a ver-
bal memory task. This change in format of the digit 
șȒƺǿ� ȠƺșǷ� Λƺș� ǾƺǏǓ� Ƞȅ� ƺΚȅǩǏ� ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠǓǏ� ǏǩГǉȣǹȠǩǓș�
participants might encounter when completing an 
auditory digit span task, such as the need for working 



64

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 

speakers, headphones, or assistive audio technology.  
 Participants were asked to remember a set of num-
bers under three varied conditions: forward, backward, 
ƺǿǏ�șǓȕȣǓǿǉǩǿǠঀ�2ǿ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǉȅǿǏǩȠǩȅǿॹ�ǏǩǠǩȠ�șȒƺǿ�ǟȅȖ-
ward, participants were instructed to recall the num-
bers in the same order in which they were presented. In 
the second condition, digit span backward, participants 
were instructed to recall the numbers in the reverse or-
der with which they were presented (e.g., if presented 
2-3, asked to recall it as 3-2). In the third condition, 
digit span sequencing, participants were asked to recall 
the digits presented in order from least to greatest in 
value (e.g., if presented 4-1-8, asked to recall it as 1-4-8).
 The string of numbers was presented one by one 
in the middle of the screen for one second. The num-
bers and timing were programmed to auto advance on 
the screen by a timer feature. An extra number was 
added to the digit string with each additional trial. 
Once all digits of a string were presented, the screen 
changed to include a text box in which participants 
were instructed to type in each number string with 
one space between each number. The text box was 
programmed to recognize the correct answer. If cor-
rect, participants auto advanced to a digit string with 
an additional digit included. If not, participants were 
auto advanced to the second trial string, in which they 
were given another chance to answer a string with the 
same digit amount, identical to the WAIS-IV’s Digit 
Span. If participants answered this string incorrect-
ly, participants auto advanced to the next condition 
(e.g., backward). Scores were summed automatical-
ly by the software. The total Digit Span score rang-
es from 0-48, with each condition’s score ranging 
from 0-16. The present study’s digit span task had 
an internal reliability score of .92. Additionally, the 
internal consistency reliability for the three condi-
tions are as follows: Digit Span Forward = .75, Digit 
Span Backward = .81, Digit Span Sequencing = .78. 

Procedure
 The Institutional Review Board at the University 
of Montana approved this study prior to data collection. 
Data were collected online using a Qualtrics-based sur-
vey that was posted on MTurk. First, participants re-
viewed the consent form and consented to participate 
in the study. Once written consent was obtained, all 
participants completed the MSE items, and then com-
pleted the digit span task. Next, participants completed 

the Washington Group Short Set, the MSPP, and the 
demographics questionnaire. Finally, all participants 
ȖǓΚǩǓΛǓǏ�ƺ�ǏǓǈȖǩǓЙǿǠ�ǟȅȖǾॹ�ȅȣȠǹǩǿǩǿǠ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȣȖȒȅșǓ�ȅǟ�
the study, and received a code to input into MTurk to 
receive the monetary incentive for their participation.

Results
Participants
 The age of participants ranged from 55 to 80 years 
(M = 65.25, SD = 4.90) and were predominantly female 
(67%) and Caucasian (66%). Ninety-two percent of par-
ticipants had an education greater than a high school 
degree. Thirty-three participants reported that they no-
ticed that their ability to remember things had changed 
over the years. Seventy-eight participants reported that 
ȠǦǓΡ�ǏǩǏ�ǿȅȠ�ǦƺΚǓ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ�
while 64% of participants reported that they did not 
ǦƺΚǓ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠ�ȅȖ�ǉȅǿǉǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠঀ�^ǓǓ�eƺ-
ble 2 for the full demographic statistics of the sample.

Hypothesis Tests
 The assumptions of linearity, normally distrib-
uted errors, and uncorrelated errors were assessed for 
all variables. The Shapiro-Wilks tests for each variable 
Λƺș� șǩǠǿǩЙǉƺǿȠ� শȒș�ઃঀࢶࢱষॹ� ƺǿǏ�ƺ�Κǩșȣƺǹ� ƺǿƺǹΡșǩș�ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ�
data revealed a slight positive skew in the distribu-
tion, as well as positively skewed clustering. Thus, 
the data for these analyses deviate somewhat from 
a normal distribution warranting caution for inter-
ȒȖǓȠǩǿǠ� ȠǦǓ� șǩǠǿǩЙǉƺǿǉǓ� ȅǟ� ǩǿǟǓȖǓǿȠǩƺǹ� ȠǓșȠ� șȠƺȠǩșȠǩǉșঀ�
 A collinearity analysis was conducted to examine 
any problematic correlations between predictor vari-
ables. In accordance with Denis (2016), which stated 
that a VIF score of 10 suggests that a study’s parame-
ȠǓȖݾ��Λƺș�ǿȅȠ�ǈǓǩǿǠ�ȒȖǓǉǩșǓǹΡ�ǓșȠǩǾƺȠǓǏ�ǏȣǓ�Ƞȅ�ƺ�ǹƺȖǠǓ�
șȠƺǿǏƺȖǏ� ǓȖȖȅȖॹ� ȠǦǓ� ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡ� ȣșǓǏ� ƺ� t2'� ǉȣȠȅА�
score of 10. VIF scores for all variables passed this 
ǉȣȠȅА� ǟȅȖ�ǈȅȠǦ� ȖǓǠȖǓșșǩȅǿ� ƺǿƺǹΡșǓș� শƺǹǹ�t2'ș�ઃࢲ�ঀࢴࢺষঀ�
 Prior to computing the regression analyses, binary 
Pearson r correlations were computed to examine the 
relationships between each variable (see Table 3). Con-
ȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ȖǓșȣǹȠș�ȖǓΚǓƺǹǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȠǦǓ�ȖǓ-
lationships between community participation and the 
ǟȅǹǹȅΛǩǿǠ� ΚƺȖǩƺǈǹǓș� ΛǓȖǓ� ǈȅȠǦ� șȠƺȠǩșȠǩǉƺǹǹΡ� șǩǠǿǩЙǉƺǿȠ�
শȒș�ઃ� ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�ƺǿǏ�ȒȅșǩȠǩΚǓ� ǩǿ�ǏǩȖǓǉȠǩȅǿॸ�E^�ॹ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�
ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠই
concentrating. Working memory ability was negatively 
correlated with community participation (p < .001).



65

MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Community Participation
 A multiple linear regression analysis was con-
ǏȣǉȠǓǏ� Ƞȅ� ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓ� ǦȅΛ�E^�ॹ� ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ� ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�
șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ� ȠƺșǷșॹ� ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ� ΛǩȠǦ� ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠইǉȅǿǉǓǿ-
trating, and working memory ability are associated 
with community participation. Entering all variables 
into the equation explained 45% of the variance in 
community participation (R2 = .45, Adj. R2 = .42, 
F(7, 141) = 16.26, p < .001; see Table 4). Greater MSE 
was positively related to more community participa-
Ƞǩȅǿ�শݾ�઀� ঀࢹࢴॹ�Ȓ�ઃ� ঀࢲࢱࢱষॹ�ƺș�ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠǓǏঀ�/ȅΛǓΚǓȖॹ�ǉȅǿ-
ȠȖƺȖΡ� Ƞȅ� ȠǦǓ� ЙȖșȠ� ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ΛȅȖșǓ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�
ƺǈǩǹǩȠΡ� শݾ� ઀� েঀࢳࢳॹ� Ȓ� ઀� ঀࢲࢱࢱষ� ƺǿǏ� ǦƺΚǩǿǠ� ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ� ǏǩГ-
ǉȣǹȠΡ�ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠইǉȅǿǉǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠ�শݾ�઀�ঀࢷࢳॹ�Ȓ�ઃ�ঀࢲࢱࢱষ�
predicted higher levels of community participation.

EǓǾȅȖΡ�^Ǔǹǟে�ГǉƺǉΡ
 A multiple linear regression analysis was conduct-
ǓǏ�Ƞȅ�ǓΠƺǾǩǿǓ�ǦȅΛ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷșॹ�
ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ΛǩȠǦ�ȖǓǾǓǾǈǓȖǩǿǠইǉȅǿǉǓǿȠȖƺȠǩǿǠॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǿȅȠǩǉ-
ing memory changes are associated with MSE. Entering 
all variables explained 13% of the variance in MSE, R2 = 
.13, Adj. R2 = .09, F(7, 140) = 2.95, p = .007; see Table 
�ষঀ��ȅǿȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�șǓǉȅǿǏ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡࢶ
ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷș�শݾ�઀ࢱ�ঀࢵࢳॹ�Ȓ�઀�ঀࢳࢱষॹ�ƺǿǏ�ǠǓǿ-
ǏǓȖ�শݾ�઀�েࢱঀࢳࢳॹ�Ȓ�઀�ঀࢲࢱষ�ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠǓǏ�ǦǩǠǦǓȖ�ǹǓΚǓǹș�ȅǟ�E^�ঀ

Discussion
Findings
 �ȅǿșǩșȠǓǿȠ�ΛǩȠǦ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓșǩșॹ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�E^��
was positively associated with community participa-
Ƞǩȅǿঀ�eǦǩș�ЙǿǏǩǿǠ�ǾǩǠǦȠ�șȣǠǠǓșȠ�ȠǦƺȠ�ȅǿǓঢ়ș�ǈǓǹǩǓǟș�ƺǈȅȣȠ�
ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ǉƺǿ�ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓ�ΛǦǓȠǦǓȖ�ȠǦǓΡ�ǉǦȅȅșǓ�Ƞȅ�ȒƺȖ-
ticipate in community activities or not. For example, if 
an individual does not think that their memory ability 
is strong, especially compared to their friends or to oth-
ers they might interact with, they might choose to stay 
home to avoid embarrassment or the stress of attend-
ǩǿǠ�ȠǦǓ�ǓΚǓǿȠঀ�/ȅΛǓΚǓȖॹ�ǉȅǿȠȖƺȖΡ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǦΡȒȅȠǦǓ-
șǩșॹ�ΛȅȖșǓ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ƺǈǩǹǩȠΡ�ƺǿǏ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�ǏǩГǉȣǹ-
ty remembering/concentrating also predicted higher 
levels of community participation. This is surprising, 
as the literature has proposed that those experiencing 
ǉȅǠǿǩȠǩΚǓ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ƺȖǓ�ǾȅȖǓ�ǹǩǷǓǹΡ�Ƞȅ�ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿǉǓ�șȅǉǩƺǹ�
isolation (DiNapoli et al., 2014; Shankar et al., 2013). 
� eǦǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡ�ǾǩǠǦȠ� șȣǠǠǓșȠ�
that individuals who experience greater cognitive 
ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ǾǩǠǦȠ� ȠǓǿǏ� Ƞȅ� șǓǓǷ� ȅȣȠ� ƺǹȠǓȖǿƺȠǩΚǓॹ� ȒǹǓƺșȣȖ

able activities or activities that might enhance their 
social support, which is contrary to the idea that this 
ǩǿǉȖǓƺșǓǏ� ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ΛȅȣǹǏ� ǹǓƺǏ� ǩǿǏǩΚǩǏȣƺǹș� Ƞȅ� șȠƺΡ� ƺȠ�
ǦȅǾǓ�ǏȣǓ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ǓΠȠȖƺ�ǓАȅȖȠ�ǩȠ�ȠƺǷǓș�Ƞȅ�ǹǓƺΚǓ�ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǦȅǾǓঀ�
Further, an explanation might be found in Greenglass 
et al. (2006), which examined how proactive cop-
ing — a form of coping in which an individual views 
stressors as challenges rather than threats — was relat-
ed to greater functional independence and lower de-
pression in older adults. It is possible that older adults 
ΛǩȠǦ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ΚǩǓΛ�ǉȅǾǾȣǿǩȠΡ�ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠǩǓș�ƺș�ǉǦƺǹǹǓǿǠ-
es, motivating them to participate in order to achieve 
and maintain independence (Greenglass et al., 2006)
� vǩȠǦ� ȖǓǠƺȖǏ� Ƞȅ� E^�ॹ� ƺ� șȣȖȒȖǩșǩǿǠ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠ� ȠǦƺȠ�
contradicted the second hypothesis was that greater 
ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǩǿǠ�șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ȠƺșǷș�Λƺș�ǟȅȣǿǏ�Ƞȅ�ȒȖǓ-
dict higher levels of MSE. It is possible that this study’s 
results were an example of the role that social desir-
ability can play in MSE and memory performance, as 
explored by Sawin (2021). Social desirability refers to 
one’s desire to minimize negative and enhance posi-
tive attributes of themselves, which can result in un-
derreporting negative behaviors while overreporting 
positive behaviors (Latkin et al., 2017; Sawin, 2021). 
In these cases, as potentially suggested by the present 
study’s data, one might overreport their memory abil-
ǩȠΡ�ǩǿ�ƺǿ�ǓАȅȖȠ�Ƞȅ�ǉȅǿǉǓƺǹ�ȠǦǓǩȖ�ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿǉǓ�ȅǟ�ǏǩГǉȣǹȠΡ�
completing self-care tasks. This would also provide 
an explanation as to why working memory ability 
was negatively related to community participation, 
ƺș� ǩȠ� ǩș�ȒȅșșǩǈǹǓ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ƺǈǩǹǩȠΡ� ǩș�ǿȅȠ�ƺș� ǩǿМȣǓǿ-
tial as social desirability is. If correct, this idea would 
contrast with the literature that examines the threat 
of stereotypes associated with aging (e.g., older adults 
are not as cognitively able strictly due to their age), on 
an individual’s abilities on memory tasks, such that 
ability is reduced due to buy-in of these stereotypes 
(Chasteen et al., 2005; Stein et al., 2002). If older 
adults instead choose to overreport their memory 
ƺǈǩǹǩȠΡॹ�ƺȠȠǓǾȒȠǩǿǠ�Ƞȅ�ƺȒȒǓƺȖ�ǈǓȠȠǓȖ�ȅА�ȠǦƺǿ�ȠǦǓΡ�ƺȖǓॹ�
then this social desirability factor might have a great-
ǓȖ�ǓАǓǉȠ�ȠǦƺǿ�șȠǓȖǓȅȠΡȒǓș�ƺșșȅǉǩƺȠǓǏ�ΛǩȠǦ�ƺǠǓ�ȅȖ�ǏǩГ-
culty completing self-care tasks could have on ability..
 'ȣȖȠǦǓȖॹ�ȅȣȖ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ǩǹǹȣșȠȖƺȠǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾǓǿ�ǦƺǏ�ǦǩǠǦ-
er MSE compared to women. This was similar to the 
ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȅǟ�'ƺǹǹƺǿ�ƺǿǏ�KȒșȠƺǏ�শࢷࢲࢱࢳষ�ƺǿǏ�/ȣƺǿǠ�শࢳࢲࢱࢳষॹ�
ΛǦǩǉǦ�ȅǈșǓȖΚǓǏ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾƺǹǓș�ȖǓȒȅȖȠǓǏ�ǦǩǠǦǓȖ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�
on math tasks. It is possible that the working memory 



66

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 

task was considered by participants to be a math task 
because it involved numbers, which could help explain 
ȠǦǓ� ǠǓǿǏǓȖ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿǉǓș� ȖǓΚǓƺǹǓǏ� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ� ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡঀ
� 'ǩǿƺǹǹΡॹ�ǠǩΚǓǿ�ȒƺșȠ�ȖǓșǓƺȖǉǦ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȠǦƺȠ�E^��Λƺș�
positively related to working memory, it was surprising 
that MSE was not positively related to working memory. 
It is possible that the executive functioning component 
of working memory caused the relationship between 
MSE and memory that was observed in past research to 
not be true of working memory. It is also possible that 
the present study’s limitations, which are discussed 
in detail below, led to a positive relationship between 
MSE and working memory remaining undetected.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
 The present study was subject to three primary lim-
itations: 1) a lack of diversity in the sample, 2) recruit-
ing participants via MTurk, 3) participants were asked 
to self-report their levels of community participation. 
� ^ȒǓƺǷǩǿǠ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ЙȖșȠ�ǹǩǾǩȠƺȠǩȅǿॹ�ǾȅșȠ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺǿȠș�
ǩǏǓǿȠǩЙǓǏ� ƺș� ǟǓǾƺǹǓ� শࢷࢷঀࢹઔষॹ��ƺȣǉƺșǩƺǿ� শࢶࢷঀࢷઔষॹ� ƺǿǏ�
achieved higher than a high school education (91.5%). 
This lack of variation could decrease the external va-
ǹǩǏǩȠΡ�ȅǟ�ȠǦǩș�șȠȣǏΡঢ়ș�ЙǿǏǩǿǠșঀ�'ȣȠȣȖǓ�ȖǓșǓƺȖǉǦ�șǦȅȣǹǏ�
retest these hypotheses with a larger and more diverse 
sample to increase the ability to generalize results. 
 Second, all participants were recruited using 
MTurk, which is an online survey platform created by 
Amazon. This could have limited the external validity 
ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ� ЙǿǏǩǿǠșॹ� ƺș� ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺȠǩǿǠ� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ� ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ� șȠȣǏΡ�
would have required technical skills to get on MTurk, 
as well as awareness about MTurk’s monetary incen-
tives in exchange for participation in research studies. 
eǦǩș�ǉȅȣǹǏ�ȒƺȖȠǩǉȣǹƺȖǹΡ�ƺАǓǉȠ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȅȒȣǹƺȠǩȅǿ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǩș�ǈǓ-
ing examined in this study, as older adults are less likely 
to possess technological skills and be aware of MTurk, 
compared to younger populations. It is possible that 
the older adults who participated in this study possess 
characteristics that might serve as a latent, confound-
ǩǿǠ�ΚƺȖǩƺǈǹǓ�ȠǦƺȠ�ǾǩǠǦȠ�ǦƺΚǓ�ƺАǓǉȠǓǏ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡঢ়ș�
ЙǿǏǩǿǠșॹ� ƺǹȠǦȅȣǠǦ� ȠǦǓȖǓ� ǩș� ǓΚǩǏǓǿǉǓॹ� ȣșǩǿǠ� ȠǦǓ� șƺǾǓ�
method and population sample as the present study, 
to suggest that the memory performance of an MTurk 
șƺǾȒǹǓ�ȅǟ�ȅǹǏǓȖ�ƺǏȣǹȠș�ǏȅǓș�ǿȅȠ�ǏǩАǓȖ�ǟȖȅǾ�ƺ�ǿȅȖǾƺ-
tive, traditional sample of older adults (Mashinchi et 
al., 2021). Future research should use one sample to 
conduct data collection through two methods: 1) via 
MTurk data collection, and 2) via in-person data col-

ǹǓǉȠǩȅǿॹ� ƺǿǏ� ȠǦǓǿ�ǉȅǾȒƺȖǓ� ȠǦǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș� Ƞȅ�ǏǓȠǓȖǾǩǿǓ�
ǩǟ� ȠǦǓȖǓ� ƺȖǓ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿǉǓș� ǩǿ� ȠǦǓ� ǓΠȒǓȖǩǓǿǉǓș� ȅǟ� ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩ-
ȒƺǿȠș�ǏȣǓ�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ǏǩАǓȖǓǿǉǓ�ǩǿ�ǏƺȠƺ�ǉȅǹǹǓǉȠǩȅǿ�ǾǓȠǦȅǏঀ
� 'ȣȖȠǦǓȖॹ� ȠǦǓ� ƺǠǓ� ЙǹȠǓȖș� ȠǦƺȠ� EeȣȖǷ� ƺǹǹȅΛș� ƺȖǓ�
ȒȖǓșǓȠ� ƺǿǏ� ȣǿǾȅǏǩЙƺǈǹǓঀ� 'ǩǟȠΡেЙΚǓ� ƺǿǏ� ȅǹǏǓȖ� ǩș� ȠǦǓ�
oldest age grouping that can be selected. This means 
that those 55-64 years old were included in the study. 
There is evidence that this age range is when subjec-
tive memory complaints begin (Jenkins et al., 2019), 
which would result in a low reported MSE, and thus 
would be an important age sample to include in this 
study. Despite this evidence, the 55-64 age grouping is 
not often subject to concerns about cognitive decline 
(Aartsen et al., 2002). It is possible that this minimum 
age could have negatively skewed the results from the 
present study and might serve as an explanation as to 
why a positive relationship between MSE and working 
memory was not found. Similarly, the median age of 
participants was 65 years old, which is on the younger 
end of the age range, and might have led to an inabili-
ty to detect a relationship between MSE and working 
memory. Future research should seek to recruit older 
ȒƺȖȠǩǉǩȒƺǿȠș�ƺǿǏ�ǉȅǾȒƺȖǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�Ƞȅ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡ�
in order to determine if there is a point at which MSE, 
working memory ability, or community participation 
changes (e.g., comparing 65-year-old scores to 85-year-
old scores). Given that the human population is get-
ting older (Crimmins, 2015; Semenova & Stadtlander, 
2016), this distinction will be important to determine.
 Additionally, it is important to note that 23 
(6.5%) participants were excluded because their re-
ported age was younger than 55. Although the MTurk 
ЙǹȠǓȖ�Λƺș�ȣșǓǏ�Ƞȅ�ȖǓǉȖȣǩȠ�ȅǿǹΡ�ȠǦȅșǓࢶࢶ��ƺǿǏ�ȅǹǏǓȖॹ�ǩȠ�ǩș�
possible that some participants have found ways to 
ǈΡȒƺșș� ȠǦǓ�ЙǹȠǓȖ� ǩǿ�ȅȖǏǓȖ� Ƞȅ� ǉȅǾȒǹǓȠǓ� ȠƺșǷș� ǟȅȖ�Ǿȅǿ-
etary incentives. Given these issues, the authors of 
the present study echo the recommendation made 
by Chmielewski and Kucker (2019) to screen data 
for completion, validity, and reliability prior to con-
ducting analyses. Researchers using MTurk might 
need to plan to recruit more participants that an a pri-
ori power analysis suggests are needed for the study.
 Third, the community participation data for 
this study was collected using a self-report measure. 
This option could allow for participants to errone-
ously recall how often they have engaged in commu-
nity activities, either by over or underestimating. Fu-
ture research should include measures beyond self-re



67

MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

port, such as asking participants to receive a stamp 
or initial on a card every time they participate in a 
community event. It is also possible that variables 
not accounted for in the present study, such as the 
geographic location and the socioeconomic status of 
both individuals and the community, might be related 
to community participation. Future research should 
seek to include these variables in their explorations.
 In addition to future research suggestions to 
address limitations, future research should also fur-
ther examine how proactive coping might have ex-
plained the present study’s results and determine 
ΛǦǓȠǦǓȖ� ȅǹǏǓȖ� ƺǏȣǹȠș� ΛǩȠǦ� ǏǩГǉȣǹȠǩǓș� ΚǩǓΛ� ǉȅǾǾȣ-
nity activities as motivated challenges to secure inde-
pendence, as suggested by Greenglass et al. (2006).

Conclusion
� �ƺșǓǏ�ȅǿ�ȠǦǓ�ЙǿǏǩǿǠș�ȅǟ�ȠǦǓ�ȒȖǓșǓǿȠ�șȠȣǏΡॹ�ǠȖǓƺȠǓȖ�
MSE is positively related to participation in communi-
ȠΡ�ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠǩǓșঀ�eǦǩș�șȠȣǏΡ�șǓȖΚǓș�ƺș�ƺ�ЙȖșȠ�șȠǓȒ�Ƞȅ�ȣǿǏǓȖ-
standing how one’s beliefs in their memory can be re-
lated to their decision of engaging in their community.

References
Aartsen, M. J., Smits, C. H. M., van Tilburg, T., 

Knipscheer, K. C. P. M., & Deeg, D. J. H. (2002). 
Activity in older adults: Cause or consequence 
of cognitive functioning? A longitudinal study 
on everyday activities and cognitive performance 
in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Se-
ries B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 
57(2), P153–P162. https://doi.org/10.1093/geron-
b/57.2.P153

Aben, B., Stapert, S., & Blokland, A. (2012). About 
the distinction between working memory and 
short-term memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00301

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive pro-
ǉǓșșǓș� ȠǦȖȅȣǠǦ� ȒǓȖǉǓǩΚǓǏ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡঀ� Develop-
mental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.729

Bandura, A. (1997). ^ǲȘǾणǲϭǨǙǨ࣒ͧ� eȅǲ� ǲͦǲȵǨȈȸǲ� ȤǾ� ǨȤȞ-
trol. W.H. Freeman.

Beaudoin, M., & Desrichard, O. (2011). Are memory 
șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ƺǿǏ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�ȒǓȖǟȅȖǾƺǿǉǓ�ȖǓǹƺȠǓǏঁ���
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 211–
241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022106

Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). 

[ǓǹǩƺǈǩǹǩȠΡ� ƺǿǏ� ΚƺǹǩǏǩȠΡ� ȅǟ� ȠǦǓ�EǓǾȅȖΡ� ^Ǔǹǟে�Г-
cacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 
25(5), 701–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.25.5.701

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. 
(2015). Census questions on disability endorsed by 
the Washington Group. Centers for Disease Con-
trol and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
data/washington_group/WG_Short_Measure_
on_Disability.pdf

Chasteen, A. L., Bhattacharyya, S., Horhota, M., 
Tam, R., & Hasher, L. (2005). How feelings 
ȅǟ� șȠǓȖǓȅȠΡȒǓ� ȠǦȖǓƺȠ� ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓ� ȅǹǏǓȖ� ƺǏȣǹȠșঢ়�
memory performance. Experimental Ag-
ing Research, 31(3), 235–260. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03610730590948177

Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An 
MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the im-
pact on study results. Social Psychological and 
Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550619875149

�ȅΛƺǿॹ�Fঀ� শࢹࢱࢱࢳষঀ��ǦƺȒȠǓȖࢱࢳ�ॸ�vǦƺȠ� ƺȖǓ� ȠǦǓ�ǏǩАǓȖ-
ences between long-term, short-term, and working 
memory? In Progress in Brain Research (Vol. 169, 
pp. 323–338). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0079-6123(07)00020-9

Crimmins, E. M. (2015). Lifespan and healthspan: 
Past, present, and promise. The Gerontologist, 
55(6), 901–911. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/
gnv130

Denis, D. J. (2016). Applied univariate, bivariate, and 
multivariate statistics. Wiley.

Desrichard, O., & Köpetz, C. (2005). A threat in the 
ǓǹǏǓȖॸ� eǦǓ� ǩǾȒƺǉȠ� ȅǟ� ȠƺșǷেǩǿșȠȖȣǉȠǩȅǿșॹ� șǓǹǟেǓГ-
cacy and performance expectations on memory 
performance in the elderly. European Journal of 
Social Psychology, 35(4), 537–552. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ejsp.249

DiNapoli, E. A., Wu, B., & Scogin, F. (2014). Social 
isolation and cognitive function in Appalachian 
older adults. Research on Aging, 36(2), 161–179. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027512470704

'ƺǹǹƺǿॹ�@ঀॹ�૭�KȒșȠƺǏॹ�@ঀ� শࢷࢲࢱࢳষঀ�^ȠȣǏǓǿȠ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�
and gender-personality interactions. Internation-
al Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), p32. https://
doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p32

Fratiglioni, L., Paillard-Borg, S., & Winblad, B. (2004). 
An active and socially integrated lifestyle in late life



68

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 

might protect against dementia. The Lancet Neurology, 
3(6), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-
4422(04)00767-7

Fritsch, T., Smyth, K. A., Debanne, S. M., Petot, G. 
J., & Friedland, R. P. (2005). Participation in 
novelty-seeking leisure activities and Alzhei-
mer’s disease. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 
and Neurology, 18(3), 134–141. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891988705277537

Greenglass, E., Fiksenbaum, L., & Eaton, J. (2006). 
The relationship between coping, social support, 
functional disability and depression in the elderly. 
Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 19(1), 15–31. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14659890500436430

Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., Schulenberg, J. E., & Hultsch, 
�ঀ� 'ঀ� শࢸࢹࢺࢲষঀ� Kǿ� ȠǦǓ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿȠǩƺȠǩȅǿ� ȅǟ� ǾǓǾȅ-
ry beliefs from memory knowledge: The factor 
structure of the metamemory in adulthood scale. 
Experimental Aging Research, 13(2), 101–107. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03610738708259308

/ȅАǾƺǿॹ��ঀॹ�૭�^ǉǦȖƺΛॹ�(ঀ�শࢺࢱࢱࢳষঀ�eǦǓ�ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓ�ȅǟ�
șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ� ƺǿǏ� ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ� ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� ǉƺȒƺǉǩȠΡ� ȅǿ�
ȒȖȅǈǹǓǾেșȅǹΚǩǿǠ� ǓГǉǩǓǿǉΡঀ� Learning and Indi-
͠ȈǮɂǙȘ� �ȈωǲȵǲȞǨǲȸ࣓� �࣓ओࠌऒࠔࠌ 91–100. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.001

/ȣƺǿǠॹ� �ঀ� শࢴࢲࢱࢳষঀ� (ǓǿǏǓȖ� ǏǩАǓȖǓǿǉǓș� ǩǿ� ƺǉƺǏǓǾǩǉ�
șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡॸ���ǾǓȠƺেƺǿƺǹΡșǩșঀ�European Journal of 
Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1–35. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y

Insel, K., Morrow, D., Brewer, B., & Figueredo, A. 
(2006). Executive function, working memory, 
and medication adherence among older adults. 
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological 
Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(2), P102–P107. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.2.P102

Lalitha, K. & Aswartha Reddy, A. (2021). Everyday 
ǾǓǾȅȖΡ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ� ƺǿǏ� șǓǹǟেȖǓȒȅȖȠǓǏ� ǦǓƺǹȠǦ�
among elderly persons. Indian Journal of Geron-
tology, 35(3), 360–374.

Latkin, C. A., Edwards, C., Davey-Rothwell, M. A., 
& Tobin, K. E. (2017). The relationship between 
social desirability bias and self-reports of health, 
substance use, and social network factors among 
urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland. 
Addictive Behaviors, 73, 133–136. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.005

Mars, G. M. J., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Post, M. W. M., 
Proot, I. M., Mesters, I., & van Eijk, J. T. M. 

(2009). The Maastricht social participation pro-
ЙǹǓॸ� �ǓΚǓǹȅȒǾǓǿȠ� ƺǿǏ� ǉǹǩǿǩǾǓȠȖǩǉ� ȒȖȅȒǓȖȠǩǓș� ǩǿ�
older adults with a chronic physical illness. Quali-
ty of Life Research, 18(9), 1207–1218. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11136-009-9537-4

Mashinchi, G. M., Cotter, K. A., & Williams, G. A. 
(2021). Creating an online digit span using Qual-
trics: Ingenuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Internal University of Montana Report: Unpub-
lished.

Mashinchi, G. M. (2022). An examination of the re-
ǹƺȠǩȅǿ�ǈǓȠΛǓǓǿ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ƺǿǏ�ΛȅȖǷǩǿǠ�
memory within the cognitive reserve framework. 
University of Montana: Graduate Student The-
ses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. https://
scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11904/

McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., 
Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The 
relationship between working memory capacity 
and executive functioning: Evidence for a com-
mon executive attention construct. Neuropsychol-
ogy, 24(2), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0017619

Meyer, M. L., Spunt, R. P., Berkman, E. T., Taylor, 
S. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Evidence for 
social working memory from a parametric func-
tional MRI study. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 1883–1888. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121077109

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of 
working memory: Mechanisms of active mainte-
nance and executive control (1st ed.). Cambridge 
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139174909

Nieboer, A. P., Hajema, K., & Cramm, J. M. (2020). 
Relationships of self-management abilities to 
loneliness among older people: A cross-sectional 
study. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 184. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12877-020-01584-x

Pearman, A., & Trujillo, A. (2013). Changes in mem-
ory prediction accuracy: Age and performance 
ǓАǓǉȠșঀ�Educational Gerontology, 39(7), 467–475. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2012.701132

Sawin, K. G. (2021). Painting a pretty picture: the role 
ȅǟ�șȅǉǩƺǹ�ǏǓșǩȖƺǈǩǹǩȠΡ�ǩǿ�ȠǦǓ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ȅǟ�
young and older adults. Butler Journal of Under-
graduate Research, 7, 272–286.

Scarmeas, N., Levy, G., Tang, M.-X., Manly, J., & Ste-



69

MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

  � � � Ȗǿॹ�|ঀ� শࢲࢱࢱࢳষঀ� 2ǿМȣǓǿǉǓ�ȅǟ� ǹǓǩșȣȖǓ� ƺǉȠǩΚǩȠΡ�ȅǿ� ȠǦǓ�
incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology, 
57(12), 2236–2242. https://doi.org/10.1212/
WNL.57.12.2236

Semenova, V., & Stadtlander, L. (2016). Death anxiety, 
depression, and coping in family caregivers. Jour-
nal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, 10(1). 
https://doi.org/10.5590/JSBHS.2016.10.1.05

Shankar, A., Hamer, M., McMunn, A., & Steptoe, A. 
(2013). Social isolation and loneliness: relation-
ships with cognitive function during 4 years of 
follow-up in the English Longitudinal Study of 
Ageing. Psychosomatic Medicine, 75(2), 161–170. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31827f09cd

Sobral, M., & Paúl, C. (2013). Education, leisure activ-
ities and cognitive and functional ability of Alzhei-
mer’s disease patients: A follow-up study. Demen-
tia & Neuropsychologia, 7(2), 181–189. https://
doi.org/10.1590/S1980-57642013DN70200008

Stein, R., Blanchard-Fields, F., & Hertzog, C. (2002). 
eǦǓ� ǓАǓǉȠș� ȅǟ� ƺǠǓেșȠǓȖǓȅȠΡȒǓ� ȒȖǩǾǩǿǠ� ȅǿ� ȠǦǓ�
memory performance of older adults. Experimen-
tal Aging Research, 28(2), 169–181. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03610730252800184

Turvey, C. L., Schultz, S., Arndt, S., Wallace, R. B., & 
Herzog, R. (2000). Memory complaint in a com-
munity sample aged 70 and older. Journal of the 
American Geriatrics Society, 48(11), 1435–1441. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.
tb02634.x

Vallet, F., Agrigoroaei, S., Beaudoin, M., Fournet, 
N., Paignon, A., Roulin, J.-L., & Desrichard, O. 
(2015). Older adults’ beliefs about forgetting and 
ƺǠǩǿǠ�ȒȖǓǏǩǉȠ�ǾǓǾȅȖΡ�șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ�ƺǈȅΚǓ�ƺǿǏ�ǈǓ-
yond actual memory performance and mental 
health. Revue Internationale de Psychologie So-
ciale, 28(4), 57–79.

Vellone, E., Pancani, L., Greco, A., Steca, P., & Riegel, 
�ঀ� শࢷࢲࢱࢳষঀ�^ǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ�ǉȅǿЙǏǓǿǉǓ�ǾƺΡ�ǈǓ�ǾȅȖǓ� ǩǾ-
ȒȅȖȠƺǿȠ� ȠǦƺǿ� ǉȅǠǿǩȠǩȅǿ� Ƞȅ� ǩǿМȣǓǿǉǓ� șǓǹǟেǉƺȖǓ� ǈǓ-
haviors in adults with heart failure: Testing a me-
diation model. International Journal of Nursing 
Studies, 60, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijnurstu.2016.04.016

Verghese, J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., 
Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G., Ambrose, A. F., Sli-
winski, M., & Buschke, H. (2003). Leisure activ-
ities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New 

England Journal of Medicine, 348(25), 2508–
2516. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022252

Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV technical and interpre-
tive manual. Pearson/PsychCorp.

West, R. L., Welch, D. C., & Knabb, P. D. (2002). 
(ǓǿǏǓȖ� ƺǿǏ� ƺǠǩǿǠॸ� ^ȒƺȠǩƺǹ� șǓǹǟেǓГǉƺǉΡ� ƺǿǏ� ǹȅ-
cation recall. Basic and Applied Social Psy-
chology, 24(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15324834BASP2401_7



70

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 



71

MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION



72

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 



73

MEMORY SELF-EFFICACY, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION



74

MASHINCHI, RAVESLOOT 


