The longevity of adaptive memory: Evidence for mnemonic advantages of survival processing 24 and 48 hours later

Raymaekers, Linsey; Otgaar, Henry; Smeets, Tom

doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.791321

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, few studies have investigated its longevity with language based stimuli (Raymaekers et al, 2014;Abel & Bäuml, 2013) and no studies have explored the effect duration in location memory. The results of our study show that the survival processing advantage is still present 4 days after encoding in both language based and location memory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A four day delay was chosen based on Ebbinghaus' (1964) suggestion that the majority of forgetting occurs during the first 4-5 days after encoding. In Experiment 1, we attempted to replicate and transpose the findings of Raymaekers et al (2014) and Abel and Bäuml (2013) to a longitudinal paradigm using word lists as target stimuli. We predicted that a comparable pattern of recall to Raymaekers et al (2014) and Abel and Bäuml (2013) would be observed.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 1, we attempted to replicate and transpose the findings of Raymaekers et al (2014) and Abel and Bäuml (2013) to a longitudinal paradigm using word lists as target stimuli. We predicted that a comparable pattern of recall to Raymaekers et al (2014) and Abel and Bäuml (2013) would be observed. In Experiment 2, we adapted Experiment 1's design to a location memory paradigm and attempted to 1), replicate the survival processing effect in location memory, and 2), further explore the longevity of the survival processing effect in location memory using a within participants A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t design.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This issue is particularly important because for an encoding procedure to be considered effective, especially to facilitate one's survival, information must be retained and be usable over a relatively lengthy period of time. Raymaekers, Otgaar and Smeets (2014) explored the longevity of the survival processing effect between groups with participants completing a free recall task immediately after encoding, after a 24 hour, or after a 48 hour delay. The free recall findings demonstrated that, despite general forgetting across time, more items were recalled when survival processing was employed at encoding as opposed to a moving scenario at all three test times.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both Raymaekers et al (2014) and Abel and Bäuml (2013) explored the longevity of the survival processing effect using a between-participants design. However, if our memory systems are "tuned" to recall survival-relevant information, this information ought to be stored not just for a "single use", but for access on multiple occasions across time.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Fit to last: Exploring the longevity of the survival processing effect

Clark

Bruno

2016

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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., 2013).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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Downloaded By [Liverpool Hope University] At 05:02 04 Augustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fit to last: Exploring the longevity of the survival processing effect

Clark

Bruno

2016

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An Evolutionary Approach to Motivation and Learning: Differentiating Biologically Primary and Secondary Knowledge

Xu,

Coertjens,

Lespiau

et al. 2024

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ubiquity of formal education in modern nations is often accompanied by an assumption that students’ motivation for learning is innate and self-sustaining. The latter is true for most children in domains (e.g., language) that are universal and have a deep evolutionary history, but this does not extend to learning in evolutionarily novel domains (e.g., mathematics). Learning in evolutionarily novel domains requires more cognitive effort and thus is less motivating. The current study tested the associated hypothesis that learning will feel easier and more motivating for evolutionarily relevant (e.g., “mother,” “food”) than evolutionarily novel (e.g., “computer,” “gravity”) word pairs and that a growth mindset emphasizing the importance of effort in learning might moderate this effect. Specifically, 144 adults were presented with 32 word pairs (half evolutionarily relevant and half evolutionarily novel) and were randomly assigned to a growth mindset or a control condition. Evolutionarily relevant words were better remembered than evolutionarily novel words (d = 0.65), and the learning was reported as more enjoyable (d = 0.49), more interesting (d = 0.38), as well as less difficult (d = − 0.96) and effortful (d = − 0.78). Although the growth mindset intervention fostered a mindset belief, compared to the control condition, it did not lead to improved recall performance or changes in motivational beliefs. These results are consistent with the prediction of higher motivation and better learning of evolutionarily relevant words and concepts than for evolutionarily novel words and concepts. Implications for future research and educational practice are discussed.

show abstract