J. S. Nairne, S. R. Thompson, and J. N. S. Pandeirada (2007) suggested that our memory systems may have evolved to help us remember fitness-relevant information and showed that retention of words rated for their relevance to survival is superior to that of words encoded under other deep processing conditions. The authors present 4 experiments that uncover the proximate mechanisms likely responsible. The authors obtained a recall advantage for survival processing compared with conditions that promoted only item-specific processing or only relational processing. This effect was eliminated when control conditions encouraged both item-specific and relational processing. Data from separate measures of item-specific and relational processing generally were consistent with the view that the memorial advantage for survival processing results from the encoding of both types of processing. Although the present study suggests the proximate mechanisms for the effect, the authors argue that survival processing may be fundamentally different from other memory phenomena for which item-specific and relational processing differences have been implicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).

Klein, Loftus, Kihlstrom, and Aseron (1989) suggested that the literature on hypermnesia (improved recall across repeated tests) could be explained by reference to the item-specific-relational information distinction. They showed that conditions designed to promote individual-item processing produced more item gains across repeated tests, whereas conditions that induced relational processing resulted in fewer item losses across tests. Five experiments generally replicate the Klein et al. results and provide evidence that item gains and losses can be used to index amount of individual-item and relational processing in a variety of experimental contexts. It is suggested that the item gain and loss measures of individual-item and relational processing may be more appropriate than the currently used measures in some experimental situations.

Single- and multifactor accounts of the generation effect (better memory for internally generated items than for externally presented items) were tested. Single-factor theories suggest that generation induces either stimulus-response relational processing or response-oriented processing. Multifactor theories suggest that generation induces both types of processing. In the first three experiments subjects either read or generated responses, and the degree of categorical structure within the list was manipulated. When categorical structure was minimal, large generation effects were observed for free recall and recognition, but not for cued recall. When categorical structure was high, however, a generation effect was observed for cued recall but not for recognition or free recall. A fourth experiment was performed to eliminate an uninteresting interpretation of the results. It is argued that a multifactor account is needed to explain these findings.

Analysis of cumulative recall curves originally led to the conclusion that asymptotic recall is inversely related to the rate of approaching asymptote. This finding suggests that recall differences between conditions on a short test would continue to exist with longer tests. However, this assumption is not always correct. In Experiments 1 and 2, orienting tasks promoting relational processing produced an initial recall advantage over item-specific processing tasks, but the advantage diminished by the end of the recall period. In Experiment 3, item-specific tasks produced a recall advantage over the relational processing task, but this advantage was manifested only after several minutes of recall. Experiments 4 and 5 extended these results. It was suggested that the results of a single recall test can be misleading when conditions differ in the amount of relational and/or item-specific information encoded.

No abstract