1

Running head: SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

A replication of Nairne, Thompson, & Pandeiradas Adaptive memory: Survival processing

enhances retention

Regina Julia R. Garcia, Andrei L. Maghirang, Kella A. Ortega, Anna Angela T. Talatala, &

Janela L. Victor

De La Salle University - Manila

 2
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Abstract

The goal of this replication was to test if processing information through survival would be

an effective mnemonic strategy. This hypothesis was tested through a word recall test.

Seventy-five undergraduate De La Salle University students were asked to rank 30 words in

accordance to the condition (survival, moving, or pleasantness) they were assigned to.

Afterwards, they were given a recall test in order to see which category of words they

remembered easier. The result of this replication is unable to support the hypothesis of the

original experiment.
 3
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention

Adaptive memory is a process wherein peoples memories adjust according to the

environment they are situated in. The memory of objects may be retained or forgotten

depending on how much the object affects a person (Anderson and Schooler, 2000).

According to some evolutionary psychologists, adaptations may even bridge from the past

(Tooby & Cosmides, 2005).

Survival pertains to the condition of persisting to live or exist, especially in difficult

situations. The need to survive plays a major role on how different processes in the brain,

like memory, work. Memory systems are structured in such a way that it will help in

survival through continuous adaptations. The brain adapts to help solve specific problems

that arose from the ancestral past (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005, 1992). Brain processes have

evolved and adapted according to a specific problem that the ancestors have faced, and

developed over time (Gould & Vrba, 1982). This development is utilized to adjust with the

modern changes. Information is processed in accordance to its survival value; retention is

better when information is survival-related.

Memory systems in the brain are designed to help remember information that is

survival-relevant to help in adapting to the changes in the environment. These systems

evolve in order to secure a fit life. It is more important to remember information related to

survival such as location of food, appearance of a predator, and protection of possessions,

as compared to random, futile information (Nairne, Thompson & Pandeirada, 2007).

Memory systems are intended to process information that would facilitate survival, a basic

instinct.
 4
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

In fact, memory systems remember how to search for spouses. Rather than

information about spontaneous events, people would be more expected to remember

information regarding their search for a partner or spouse because finding a partner is

more relevant to a persons survival (Bairne, 2007). Also, memory systems instinctively

know how to cope under stress. Studies have shown that memory retention is higher when

under a lot of stress. People who have low stress levels yielded lower results of memory

retention, than of those who are greatly stressed (Smeets, Otgaar, Raymaekers, Peters, &

Merckelbach, 2012). These two examples are said to be most likely remembered because

they are needed as a means of survival.

In the experiment to be replicated, Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirda (2007)

hypothesized that survival processing would be an effective mnemonic strategy. One

hundred and fifty Purdue undergraduates participated in the experiment; they were asked

to rate thirty words according to its relevance in their given conditions. They were

randomly assigned to take part in one of the three conditions - survival, moving, or

pleasantness. When put in the survival condition, participants were asked to imagine that

they were stranded in the grasslands of a foreign land, without any of their basic needs. The

relevance of each word was based on how they would obtain food and water, as well as

how they would protect themselves from predators. When put in the moving condition,

participants were asked to imagine that they were moving to a new home. The relevance of

each word was based on how they would find and purchase their new home as well as how

they would transport all their belongings. When the participants were placed in the

pleasantness condition, participants were simply asked to rate the pleasantness of each

word. The words to be rated were presented on personal computers. Each word was
 5
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

presented for only 5 seconds each, and participants were told to respond within the

allotted time. The rating of each word was on a 5-point scale, with 1 being totally irrelevant

or unpleasant to 5 being extremely relevant or pleasant. After all 30 words were presented;

a digit-recall task was shown. Seven digits were flashed on screen for 1 second each.

Participants were asked to type the digits in sequential order into a text box. This was

followed by a surprise free-recall test, wherein participants were asked to list down the

words presented earlier, in any order, on a separate response sheet. They were given 10

minutes to recall as many words as they can. The results show that participants who were

in the survival condition recalled more words compared to those in the moving and

pleasantness conditions. It also showed that words that were perceived to be relevant in

survival were remembered better compared to words that were less relevant.

The experimenters replicated the experiment of Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirda

(2007) because they wished to study and confirm the hypothesis of the experiment. They

also saw importance in the subject of the experiment. The topic of memory and its

relationship to survival may benefit the educational aspects of a human beings life. This

replication may also be a substantial contribution to the current studies concerning a

persons memory, its functions, and its evolution.

In another study, Nairne, Pandeirada, and Thompson (2008) proved that memory is

more superior when words are rated under the survival condition compared to the non-

survival condition. A within-sample design was used in this experiment. Participants were

asked to rate a total of 32 words according to its relevance in the given situation. The

relevance of each word was rated from 1 (totally irrelevant) to 5 (extremely relevant). The

words were presented using a personal computer and each word was flashed for only five
 6
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

seconds each. Participants rated 16 words under the survival condition. In this condition,

they were asked to imagine that they were in a stranded island without any basic

necessities. Under the non-survival condition, another 16 words were rated. Here, they

were asked to imagine that they were vacationing in a fancy resort with all basic needs

taken care of and that they were trying to find an activity to pass the time and maximize

their stay. The scenario would change after every eighth word, so the sequence would

either be survival-vacation-survival-vacation or vacation-survival-vacation-survival. After

the last word was presented, a distractor task and a surprise free-recall memory test were

conducted. Results of the study show that participants were able to recall more words

under the survival condition.

One other study hypothesized that location memory would be enhanced when

condition given was related to survival (Nairne, vanArsdall, Blunt, & Pandeirada, 2012).

The independent variable was the processing condition given and manipulated by the

experimenters; its levels were the scavenger hunt condition and the grassland survival

condition. The dependent variable of their study was the enhancement of location memory

of the participants. During their experiment, they used a between-samples design wherein

there were two groups with different conditions. The participants were randomly assigned

as they arrived at the room and were asked to rate eight food images using a five-point

scale. The first group was exposed to the scavenger hunt condition. The participants of this

group were told that the eight food images that will appear on the screen should be ranked

according to its necessity for them to win a scavenger hunt contest. The other group was

exposed to the grassland survival condition wherein they were told that the eight food

images that will appear on the screen should be ranked according to the participants
 7
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

necessity for survival in foreign grassland. After rating the images, the participants were

asked to do a digit recognition test determining if the digit that appeared on the screen was

odd or even. After the digit recognition test, the participants were asked to look at the

screen again. They were told that the food images that they had rated will reappear and

that they had to recall on what location the image appeared at first. Based on the

experiment conducted, the experimenters concluded that the scenario presented does

essentially affect the location memory of the participant. The results of their experiment

supported their hypothesis that location memory was enhanced whenever the condition

given to the participants was related to survival.

The replicated experiments hypothesis was supported by the results of the two

other experiments. The two experiments show that it is easier to remember or retain

memory associated with survival. Also, in the first study presented (Nairne, Pandeirada, &

Thompson, 2008), it was further stated that survival processing is one of the best encoding

strategies to be used in order to enhance the recall memory of people when using free

recall as a mention of retention.

Method

Participants

Seventy-five undergraduate student of De La Salle University participated in the

experiment. The participants were given chocolate bars as an incentive. Some participated

for extra-credit in their introductory psychology courses.

Materials and Apparatus

A 1/4 of a piece of pad paper was used for the practice test, the digit-recall test, and

the recall test. Another answer sheet, the ranking sheet, was used for ranking the 30 words
 8
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

presented. It had two kinds the one that ranked the relevance of either moving or survival

condition and the one that ranked the pleasantness of the pleasant condition. They were

sized 1.5 cm x 8 cm, and were printed with the color black; the font used was Arial and its

size was 12. The participants were instructed to check the blank boxes found below the

rating scale (1 totally irrelevant/unpleasant to 5 extremely relevant/pleasant).

Four personal (Intel Core Duo; OS: Windows XP) computers were used for this

replication. The program used to present the 30 words was made with Macromedia Flash

MX (blank screen = .1s, words flashed for 6 seconds each, total time of word flash = 186s,

blank screen = 5s, numbers = 8s, recall Instructions = 1s) and consumed a total of 200.1s.

The font used for the 30 words was Times New Roman, sized 70. Whereas, the font used for

the recall instruction was Times New Roman with a size of 40 (Diaz, 2012).

Procedure

Participants were acquired at from the different buildings of De La Salle University.

They were asked to enter the room and to sign the consent form presented to them. After

which, they were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (survival, moving, or

pleasantness). They were taken to one of the four computers present in the four corners of

the room. Only one participant was allowed per computer. The participants were shown a

PowerPoint slide containing instructions of the respective conditions they were assigned

to. Then, they were given 1/4 of a piece of pad paper, and were instructed that they would

be given a practice test first and that they were to answer on the paper given. After

completing the 5 item practice test, the participants were given the real ranking sheets, and

were presented the 30-word slide presentation, as provided by Diaz (2012). They were

only given 5 seconds to rank each word. Once the 5 seconds were through, another word
 9
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

was automatically presented by the program. After the word ranking task, seven slides that

showed each of the 7 numbers for the digit recall task were immediately played. The

participants were asked to write the 7 digits presented to them, in the correct order, on the

same piece of paper given to them when they answered the practice test. After the

participants finished writing the digits, on the same piece of paper, they were asked to

write all the words they could recall from the 30 words shown to them. Once the

participants completed the recall task, they were given their incentive and were debriefed

of the purpose of the experiment. They were also told to ask any questions they had

regarding the experiment. When they had none, they were thanked and escorted out of the

room (Nairne, Thompson, & Pandeirada, 2007).

Results

The researchers studied how thoughts about survival can improve a persons ability

to recall. Based on the results, survival had the most number of words recalled compared to

the moving and pleasantness conditions; Msurvival = 12.96 (SD= 0.63), Mmoving = 12.36

(SD = 0.62), Mpleasantness = 11.08 (SD=0.62). However, after applying an overall analysis

of variance, it was found that there was no significant difference between the three

conditions, F(2,71)=2.37, p=.10.

The hypothesis of the original experiment was not supported by the results of the

replication. The participants did not remember more words when they were thinking

about survival, than when they were thinking about moving or pleasantness.

Discussion

The findings of this replication suggest that survival processing was not an effective

mnemonic tool to use in memory recall functions; as such, the hypothesis of the original
 10
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

study was not accepted based on the results of this replication. However, the results of this

replication may not coincide with others, since the range of participants was only limited

to undergraduate students of De La Salle University.

The original hypothesis may have been rejected in this replication because of many

reasons. One of which is that it may truly be a fact that the way information is processed

does not have any effect to the memory recall functions of people. As an example, one study

found that evolutionary or survival processing did not affect the recall of the factual

content of a story, even if that story entails a survival relevant plot. Participants were

assigned to either hearing a survival-relevant story or a learning story; they rated

paragraphs of the story according to survival or learning relevance. Afterwards, they were

given a distraction task and were asked to recall and supply details about the story they

read. When compared, rating the paragraphs of a story for survival relevance did not have

any significant difference to rating the paragraphs for learning relevance; both conditions

did not help the participants in recalling the story content. The results imply that survival

processing may not be advantageous when dealing with factual content (Seamon et al.,

2012).

On the other hand, it could also be because of the extraneous variables found later

on while the experiments were being conducted, namely the ranking sheets, time

constraints, and the 30 words used for the experiment. The tool for rating was found to be

an inconvenience to most of the participants, especially the left-handed ones. They had a

hard time flipping the thin sheets and making the sheets stay in-place whenever they were

trying to rate the words. There were cases wherein some had to catch up in rating because

of the apparatus used for the word-rating. The second factor which may have affected the
 11
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

results was the time constraint the participants experienced when they were doing the

ranking task. This problem may be primarily caused or may simply be just connected to the

first problem (faulty tool used for rating); however, this still had great effects to the

participants. Some did not feel the time constraint and had no problems in answering the

ratings, but there were still quite a number of participants who struggled with the time

given per slide. Some of those who struggled with the time might have ended-up guessing

their ratings just to not fall behind in the rating the other words. Another factor which may

have contributed to the results of the experiment is the list of the thirty words used. Since

the original experiment was conducted in another setting and on a different audience, the

words they used may not be applied to the setting and participants the replication used.

Inferring to this, the results of the experiment may imply that it really does not

matter what kind of process a person uses as a form of mnemonic since they will all have

the same effect or they will have no effect on the recall capabilities of a person. The results

of this replication may also imply that there are specific needs to be settled first before

survival processing could be considered a good mnemonic device compared to the other

two conditions presented in this replication. Specifically, needs that pertain to what value

or what relationship does the word being recalled have with the person recalling it, how

much time was allotted for a person to process the memory, and what the design of the tool

given for rating to the person was.

 12
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

References

Anderson, J., & Schooler, L. (2000). The adaptive nature of memory. In E. Tulving & F. I. M.

Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 557570). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bairne, J., Thompson, S., & Pandeirada J. (2007). Adaptive memory: survival processing

enhances retention. American Psychological Association, 33(2), 263-273.

Diaz, P. (2012, July 16). Experiment 3 Program. Yahoo Groups: LBYPSMX_A54. Retrieved

July 16, 2012, from

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ULsNUP1lFW6RIFBEcKqY57b9kcaiPaEZNnIJsfigHVY

AnD_tc5vv6DzaUlmEDohnob8NyJ1FaDyz0QAqSr0Vu-

N37XWoIjYd0GRLWQ/Experiment%203%20Program.swf

Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. (1982). Exaptation: A missing term in the science of

form. Paleontological Society, 8(1), 4-15.

Nairne, J., vanArsdall, J., Blunt, J., & Pandeirada, J. (2012). Adaptive memory: Enhanced

location memory after survival processing. American Psychological

Association, 38(2), 495-501.

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, 263273.

Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Thompson, S. R. (2008). Adaptive memory: The

comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19, 176180.

Seamon, J. G., Bohn, J., Coddington, I., Ebling, M., Grund, E., Haring, C., Jang, S., Kim, D.,

Liong, C., Paley, F., Pang, L., & Siddique, A. (2012). Can survival processing enhance
 13
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

story memory? Testing the generalizability of the adaptive memory

framework. American Psychological Association, 38(4), 1045-1056.

Smeets, T., Otgaar, H., Raymaekers, L., Peters, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2012). Survival

processing in times of stress. Psychon Bull Rev, 19(11), 113-118. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264879/

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow,

L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary theory and the

generation of culture (pp. 19 136). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionaty psychology. In D.

Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5-67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
 14
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 1

Univariate Tests of Significance for Rating

Univariate Tests of Significance for rating (datalbypsmx) Sigma-restricted

parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition; Std. Error of Estimate: .4376960

SS Degr. of - Freedom MS F p

Intercept 716.19* 1* 716.19* 3738.38* 0.00*

Category 3.19* 2* 1.60* 8.34* 0.00*

Error 13.60 71 0.19

 15
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 2

Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for Rating

Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for rating (datalbypsmx) Sigma-

restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition

Non-
Degr. of - Partial eta- Observed power
SS MS F p centralit
Freedom squared (alpha=0.05)
y

Interc 716. 716. 3738. 0.0

1* 0.98* 3738.38* 1.00*
ept 19* 19* 38* 0*

Categ 3.19 1.60 0.0

2* 8.34* 0.19* 16.68* 0.96*
ory * * 0*

13.6
Error 71 0.19
0
 16
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 3

Table for One-Way ANOVA, Unweighted Means: Category vs. Rating

Category; LS Means (datalbypsmx) Current effect: F(2, 71)=8.3380, p=.00056 Effective

hypothesis decomposition

rating - rating - rating - - rating -

Category N
Mean Std.Err. 95.00% +95.00%

1 MOVING 2.977600 0.087539 2.803052 3.152148 25

2 SURVIVAL 2.952839 0.089344 2.774692 3.130987 24

PLEASANTNES
3 3.404260 0.087539 3.229712 3.578808 25
S
 17
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 4

Table for One-Way ANOVA, Tukey HSD Test for Category vs. Rating

Tukey HSD test; variable rating (datalbypsmx) Approximate Probabilities for Post Hoc

Tests Error: Between MSE = .19158, df = 71.000

Category {1} - 2.9776 {2} - 2.9528 {3} - 3.4043

MOVING 0.98* 0.00*

SURVIVAL 0.98 0.00*

PLEASANTNESS 0.00* 0.00*

 18
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 5

Univariate Tests of Significance for Number of Words Recalled

Univariate Tests of Significance for words recalled (datalbypsmx) Sigma-restricted

parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition; Std. Error of Estimate: 3.096018

SS Degr. of - Freedom MS F p

Intercept 10889.08* 1* 10889.08* 1136.02* 0.00*

Category 45.35 2 22.67 2.37 0.10

Error 680.56 71 9.59

 19
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 6

Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for Number of Words Recalled

Univariate Tests of Significance, Effect Sizes, and Powers for words recalled (datalbypsmx)

Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition

Non-
Degr. of - Partial eta- Observed power
SS MS F p centralit
Freedom squared (alpha=0.05)
y

Inter 1088 1088 113

1* 0.00* 0.94* 1136.02 1.00*
cept 9.08* 9.08* 6.02

Categ 0.101
45.35 2 22.67 2.37 0.06 4.731 0.46
ory 270

680.5
Error 71 9.59
6
 20
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Table 7

Table for One-Way ANOVA, Unweighted Means: Category vs. Words Recalled

Category; LS Means (datalbypsmx) Current effect: F(2, 71)=2.3654, p=.10127 Effective

hypothesis decomposition

words recalled words recalled - words recalled - words recalled -

category N
- Mean Std.Err. -95.00% +95.00%

2
1 MOVING 12.36 0.62 11.13 13.59
5

2
2 SURVIVAL 12.96 0.63 11.70 14.22
4

PLEASANT 2
3 11.08 0.62 9.85 12.31
NESS 5
 21
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

category; LS Means
Current effect: F(2, 71)=8.3380, p=.00056
Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2
rating

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6
MOVING SURVIVAL PLEASANTNESS
category

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the comparison of the means of category vs. rating
 22
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

category; LS Means
Current effect: F(2, 71)=2.3654, p=.10127
Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
15.0

14.5

14.0

13.5

13.0
words recalled

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0
MOVING SURVIVAL PLEASANTNESS
category
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the comparison of the means of category vs. number

of words recalled
 23
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Appendix A

Ranking sheet for relevance (for survival and moving conditions)

Totally Somewhat Undecided Somewhat Extremely

Irrelevant Irrelevant Relevant Relevant

1 2 3 4 5
 24
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Appendix B

Ranking sheet for pleasantness (for pleasantness condition)

Totally Somewhat Undecided Somewhat Extremely

Unpleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Pleasant

1 2 3 4 5
 25
SURVIVAL PROCESSING ON MEMORY RETENTION

Appendix C

List of 30 words used for ranking

truck cathedral

juice soccer

silver sock

door book

car chair

silk snow

diesel screwdriver

shoes emerald

orange eagle

broccoli

sword

teacher

mountain

finger

whiskey

bear

apartment

pan

pepper

aunt

flute