Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 1151–1156 | Cite as

The mnemonic advantage of processing fitness-relevant information

  • Sean H. K. Kang
  • Kathleen B. McDermott
  • Sophie M. Cohen
Article

Abstract

Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007) proposed that our memory systems serve an adaptive function and that they have evolved to help us remember fitness-relevant information. In a series of experiments, they demonstrated that processing words according to their survival relevance resulted in better retention than did rating them for pleasantness, personal relevance, or relevance to moving to a new house. The aim of the present study was to examine whether the advantage of survival processing could be replicated, using a control condition that was designed to match the survival processing task in arousal, novelty, and media exposure—the relevance to planning a bank heist. We found that survival processing nonetheless yielded better retention on both a recall (Experiment 1) and a recognition (Experiment 2) test. This mnemonic advantage of survival processing was also obtained when words were rated for their relevance to a character depicted in a video clip (Experiment 3). Our findings provide additional evidence that the mnemonic benefit of survival processing is a robust phenomenon, and they also support the utility of adopting a functional perspective in investigating memory.

Keywords

Rating Task Survival Scenario Pleasantness Condition Mnemonic Benefit Mnemonic Advantage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Buller, D. J. (2005). Evolutionary psychology: The emperor’s new paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 277–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.Google Scholar
  4. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Decety, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2003). Shared representations between self and other: A social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 527–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar
  8. Hunt, R. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109, 306–329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Nairne, J. S. (2005). The functionalist agenda in memory research. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental psychology and its applications (pp. 115–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nairne, J. S., Thompson, S. R., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2007). Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Packman, J. L., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Effects of different kinds of semantic processing on memory for words. Memory & Cognition, 6, 502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schulman, A. I. (1974). Memory for words recently classified. Memory & Cognition, 2, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sherry, D. F., & Schacter, D. L. (1987). The evolution of multiple memory systems. Psychological Review, 94, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory & Language, 50, 289–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean H. K. Kang
    • 1
  • Kathleen B. McDermott
    • 1
  • Sophie M. Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWashington UniversitySaint Louis

Personalised recommendations