Memory & Cognition

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Source-constrained retrieval and survival processing

  • James S. Nairne
  • Josefa N. S. Pandeirada
  • Joshua E. VanArsdall
  • Janell R. Blunt
Article

Abstract

Three experiments investigated the mnemonic effects of source-constrained retrieval in the survival-processing paradigm. Participants were asked to make survival-based or control decisions (pleasantness or moving judgments) about items prior to a source identification test. The source test was followed by a surprise free recall test for all items processed during the experiment, including the new items (foils) presented during the source test. For the source test itself, when asked about the content of prior processing—did you make a survival or a pleasantness decision about this item?—no differences were found between the survival and control conditions. The final free recall data revealed a different pattern: When participants were asked to decide whether an item had been processed previously for survival, that item was subsequently recalled better than when the source query asked about pleasantness or relevance to a moving scenario. This mnemonic boost occurred across-the-board—for items processed during the initial rating phase and for the new items. These data extend the generality of source-constrained retrieval effects and have implications for understanding the proximate mechanisms that underlie the oft-replicated survival-processing advantage in recall and recognition.

Keywords

Evolution Memory Source-constrained retrieval Recall 

References

  1. Alban, M. W., & Kelley, C. M. (2012). Variations in constrained retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 40, 681–692. doi:10.3758/s13421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: An interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 123–144). Erlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, D. J., Burns, S. A., & Hwang, A. 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. doi:10.1037/a0021325 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bröder, A., Krüger, N., & Schütte, S. (2011). The survival processing memory effect should generalise to source memory, but it doesn’t. Psychology, 2, 896–901. doi:10.4236/psych.2011.29135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, A. C., Kang, S. H. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Congruity effects between materials and processing tasks in the survival processing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1477–1486. doi:10.1037/a0017024 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiu, Y.-C., Dolcos, F., Gonsalves, B. D., & Cohen, N. J. (2013). On opposing effects of emotion on contextual or relational memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psychlinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505. doi:10.1080/14640748108400805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danckert, S. L., MacLeod, C. M., & Fernandes, M. A. (2011). Source-constrained retrieal influences the encoding of new information. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1374–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallo, D. A., Meadow, N. G., Johnson, E. L., & Foster, K. Y. (2008). Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 1095–1111. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halamish, V., Goldsmith, M., & Jacoby, L. L. (2012). Source-constrained recall: Front-end and back-end control of retrieval quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1–15. doi:10.1037/a0025053 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Howe, M. L. (2011). The adaptive nature of memory and its illusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 312–315. doi:10.1177/0963721411416571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howe, M. L., & Derbish, M. H. (2010). On the susceptibility of adaptive memory to false memory illusions. Cognition, 115, 252–267. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacoby, L. L., Shimizu, Y., Daniels, K. A., & Rhodes, M. G. (2005a). Modes of cognitive control in recognition and source memory: Depth of retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 852–857. doi:10.3758/BF03196776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacoby, L. L., Shimizu, Y., Velanova, K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2005b). Age differences in depth of retrieval: Memory for foils. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Cohen, S. M. (2008). The mnemonic advantage of processing fitness-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1151–1156. doi:10.3758/MC.36.6.1151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kroneisen, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2011). On the plasticity of the survival processing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1553–1562. doi:10.1037/a0024493 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Marsh, R. L., Meeks, J. T., Cook, G. I., Clark-Foos, A., Hicks, J. L., & Brewer, G. A. (2009). Retrieval constraints on the front end create differences in recollection on a subsequent test. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 470–479. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonough, I. M., & Gallo, D. A. (2008). Autobiographical elaboration reduces memory distortion: Cognitive operations and the distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1430–1445. doi:10.1037/a0013013 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nairne, J. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: Evolutionary constraints on remembering. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 1-32). Burlington: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53001-9
  20. Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2008). Adaptive memory: Is survival processing special? Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 377–385. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2011). Congruity effects in the survival processing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 539–549. doi:10.1037/a0021960 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Thompson, S. R. (2008). Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19, 176–180. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nairne, J. S., Thompson, S. R., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2007). Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 263–273. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.263 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nairne, J. S., VanArsdall, J. E., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Blunt, J. R. (2012). Adaptive memory: Enhanced location memory after survival processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 495–501. doi:10.1037/a0025728 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Otgaar, H., & Smeets, T. (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. doi:10.1037/a0019402 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Otgaar, H., Smeets, T., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Verschure, B., Galliot, A.-M., & van Riel, L. (2011). Adaptive memory: Stereotype activation is not enough. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1033–1041. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0091-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Packman, J. L., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Effects of different kinds of semantic processing on memory for words. Memory & Cognition, 6, 502–508. doi:10.3758/BF03198238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmore, C. C., Garcia, A. D., Bacon, L. P., Johnson, C. A., & Kelemen, W. L. (2012). Congruity influences memory and judgments of learning during survival processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 119–125. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0186-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Riefer, D. M., Chien, Y., & Reimer, J. F. (2007). Positive and negative generation effects in source monitoring. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1389–1405. doi:10.1080/17470210601025646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2013). Is the survival-processing memory advantage due to richness of encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1294–1302. doi:10.1037/a0031214
  31. Rotello, C. M., & Macmillan, N. A. (2007). Response bias in recognition memory. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 48). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Savine, A. C., Scullin, M. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2011). Survival processing of faces. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1359–1373. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0121-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seamon, J. G., Bohn, J. M., Coddington, I. E., Ebling, M. C., Grund, E. M., Haring, C. T., …, Siddique, A. H. (2012). Can survival processing enhance story memory? Testing the generalizability of the adaptive memory framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 38, 1045-1056. doi:10.1037/a0027090
  34. Tse, C.-H., & Altarriba, J. (2010). Does survival processing enhance implicit memory? Memory & Cognition, 38, 1110–1121. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weinstein, Y., Bugg, J. M., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Can the survival recall advantage be explained by the basic memory processes? Memory & Cognition, 36, 913–919. doi:10.3758/MC.36.5.913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • James S. Nairne
    • 1
  • Josefa N. S. Pandeirada
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joshua E. VanArsdall
    • 1
  • Janell R. Blunt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.University of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations