Mounting evidence indicates that processing items for their survival value produces superior recall compared to a number of other well-known memory-enhancing techniques, and that this mnemonic advantage remains up to 48 hours after encoding (Raymaekers et al., 2014). However, little attention has been dedicated to the survival processing effect in location memory, which may represent a better test of adaptive memory than retrieval of verbal information. The current study aims to fill this gap by exploring the longevity of the survival processing effect with both word list (Experiment 1) and location-based (Experiment 2) stimuli. Participants rated target items using a single incidental encoding scenario, either Survival versus Pleasantness (word stimuli) or Survival versus Scavenger Hunt (location stimuli). They were then asked to complete a surprise recall task immediately after the ratings and a second recall task 96 hours later. The results demonstrated that, despite a general reduction in memory performance across time, the survival processing advantage was detected at both test times for both stimuli types. These findings provide further support for the survival processing effect and extend the observed effect duration for both word lists and location to 96 hours.
AbelM., & BäumlK. T. (2013). Adaptive memory: The influence of sleep and wake delay on the survival-processing effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 917–924.
2.
BröderA., KrügerN., & SchütteS. (2011). The survival processing memory effect should generalise to source memory, but it doesn't. Psychology, 2, 896–901.
3.
BurnsD. J., BurnsS. A., & HwangA. J. (2011). Adaptive memory: Determining the proximate mechanisms responsible for the memorial advantages of survival processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and Cognition, 37, 206–218.
4.
ButlerA. C., KangS. H. K., & RoedigerH. L.III (2009). Congruity effects between materials and processing tasks in the survival processing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and Cognition, 35, 1477–1486.
5.
EbbinghausH. E. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1885).
6.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA. G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
7.
HoweM. L., & OtgaarH. (2013). Proximate mechanisms and the development of adaptive memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 16–22.
8.
KangA. H. K., McDermottK. B. & CohenS. M. (2008). The mnemonic advantage of processing fitness-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1151–1156.
9.
KleinS. B. (2012). A role for self-reverential processing in tasks requiring participants to imagine survival on the Savannah. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and Cognition, 38, 1234–1242.
10.
KleinS. B. (2013). Does optimal recall performance in the adaptive memory paradigm require the encoding context to encourage thoughts about the environment of evolutionary adaptation?Memory & Cognition, 41, 49–59.
11.
KleinS. B., RobertsonT. E., & DeltonA. W. (2010). Facing the future: Memory as an evolved system for planning future acts. Memory and Cognition, 38, 13–22.
12.
KleinS. B., RobertsonT. E., & DeltonA. W. (2011). The future-orientation of memory: Planning as a key component mediating the high levels of recall found with survival processing. Memory, 19, 121–139.
13.
KleinS. B., RobertsonT. E., DeltonA. W., & LaxM. L. (2012). Familiarity and personal experience as mediators of recall when planning for future contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 240–245.
14.
KroneisenM., & ErdfelderE. (2011). On the plasticity of the survival processing effect. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37, 1553–1562.
15.
NairneJ. S. (2005). The functionalist agenda in memory research. In HealyA. F. (Ed.), Experimental psychology and its applications (pp. 115–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
NairneJ. S., & PandeiradaJ. N. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: Ancestral priorities and the mnemonic value of survival processing. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 1–22.
17.
NairneJ. S., PandeiradaJ. N. S., GregoryK. J., & Van ArsdallJ. E. (2009). Adaptive memory: Fitness relevance and the hunter-gatherer mind. Psychological Science, 20, 740–746.
18.
NairneJ. S., PandeiradaJ. N. S., & ThompsonS. R. (2008). Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19, 176–180.
19.
NairneJ. S., ThompsonS. R., & PandeiadaJ. N. S. (2007). Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and Cognition, 33, 263–273.
20.
NairneJ. S., VanArsdallJ. E., PandeiradaJ. N. S., & BluntJ. R. (2012). Adaptive memory: Enhanced location memory after survival processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and Cognition, 38, 495–501.
21.
NouchiR., & KawashimaR. (2012). Effect of the survival judgement task on memory performance in subclinically depressed people. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00114
22.
OtgaarH., HoweM. L., SmeetsT., & GarnerS. R. (2014). Developmental trends in adaptive memory. Memory, 22, 103–117.
23.
OtgaarH., & SmeetsT. (2010). Adaptive memory: Survival processing increases both true and false memory in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and Cognition, 36, 1010–1016.
24.
OtgaarH., SmeetsT., MerckelbackH., JelicicM., VerschuereB., GalliotA., & van RielL. (2011). Adaptive memory: Stereotype activation is not enough. Memory and Cognition, 39, 1033–1041.
25.
OtgaarH., SmeetsT., & van BergenS. (2010). Picturing survival memories: Enhanced memory after fitness-relevant processing occurs for verbal and visual stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 38, 23–28.
26.
PackmanJ. L., & BattigW. P. (1978). Effects of different kinds of semantic processing on memory for words. Memory & Cognition, 6, 502–508.
27.
PandeiradaJ. N. S., PinhoM. S., & FariaA. L. (2014). The mark of adaptive memory in healthy and cognitively impaired older adults and elderly. Japanese Psychological Research, 56, 168–179.
28.
RaymaekersL. H. C., OtgaarH., & SmeetsT. (2014). The longevity of adaptive memory: Evidence for the mnemonic advantages of survival processing 24 and 48 hours later. Memory, 22, 19–25.
29.
RoedigerH. L., & KarpickeJ. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.
30.
SeamonJ. G., BohnJ. M., CoddingtonI. E., EblingM. C., GrundE. M., HaringC. T., … SiddiqueA. H. (2012). Can survival processing enhance story memory? Testing the generalizability of the adaptive memory framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning memory and Cognition, 38, 1045–1056.
31.
SoderstromN. C., & McCabeD. P. (2011). Are survival processing memory advantages based on ancestral priorities?Pyschonomic Bulletin Review, 18, 564–569.
