Working memory load eliminates the survival processing effect

Abstract

In a series of experiments, Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007) demonstrated that words judged for their relevance to a survival scenario are remembered better than words judged for a scenario not relevant on a survival dimension. They explained this survival-processing effect by arguing that nature "tuned" our memory systems to process and remember fitness-relevant information. Kroneisen and Erdfelder (2011) proposed that it may not be survival processing per se that facilitates recall but the richness and distinctiveness with which information is encoded. To further test this account, we investigated how the survival processing effect is affected by cognitive load. If the survival processing effect is due to automatic processes or, alternatively, if survival processing is routinely prioritized in dual-task contexts, we would expect this effect to persist under cognitive load conditions. If the effect relies on cognitively demanding processes like richness and distinctiveness of encoding, however, the survival processing benefit should be hampered by increased cognitive load during encoding. Results were in line with the latter prediction, that is, the survival processing effect vanished under dual-task conditions.

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

“…Nairne and Pandeirada (2010) concurred and did not find survival advantages for source memory. The survival processing advantage also vanished under dual task conditions, implying that survival processing may not be prioritized in dual task contexts (Kroneisen, Rummel, & Erdfelder, 2014).…”

What kind of processing is survival processing?

“…Admittedly, not all scholars agree with these criteria (see, e.g., Barrett & Kurzban, 2006;Jung, Ruthruff, Tybur, Gaspelin, & Miller, 2012). Nevertheless, if the survival processing advantage can be traced back to an evolved adaptation although it requires working memory resources, the least we would expect is that survival processing should be prioritized by default when several demanding tasks are processed simultaneously (see also Kroneisen et al, 2014, for a detailed discussion). Hence, the SPE should still persist under working memory load, in exchange for a deterioration in secondary task performance compared to control conditions.…”

“…As outlined by Kroneisen et al (2014) there are different proximate explanations of the effect. According to evolutionary explanations, the SPE reflects Bhardwired^auto-matic processes based on evolved domain-specific cognitive modules.…”

“…Here, the current evidence is mixed. Kroneisen et al (2014) found no survival processing advantage when the survival task was combined with an auditory continuous choice reaction time (CRT) task (cf. Naveh-Benjamin, Guez, & Marom, 2003).…”

“…Naveh-Benjamin, Guez, & Marom, 2003). Participants in the experiment by Kroneisen et al (2014) rated words for their relevance to either a survival or a moving scenario under either standard conditions or dual-task conditions. Participants in the dual-task conditions were presented with a random sequence of high-and low-pitch tones via headphones while rating words with regard to their relevance for either the survival or the moving scenario.…”