Abstract
Einstein et al., (2005) predicted no cost to an ongoing task when a prospective memory task meet certain criteria. Smith et al. (2007) used prospective memory tasks that met these criteria and found a cost to the ongoing task, contrary to Einstein et al.'s prediction. Einstein and McDaniel (in press) correctly note that there are limitations to using ongoing task performance as a measure of the processes that contribute to prospective memory performance, however, the alternatives suggested by Einstein and McDaniel all focus on ongoing task performance and therefore do not move beyond the cost debate. This article describes why the Smith et al. findings are important, provides recommendations for issues to consider when investigating cost, and discusses individual cost measures. Finally, noting the blurry distinction between Einstein and McDaniel's description of the reflexive associative processes and preparatory attentional processes and difficulties in extending the multiprocess view to nonlaboratory tasks, suggestions are made for moving beyond the cost debate.