Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 383–394 | Cite as

Adaptive memory: Animacy, threat, and attention in free recall

  • Juliana K. LedingEmail author
Article

Abstract

Animate items are better remembered than inanimate items, suggesting that human memory systems evolved in a way to prioritize memory for animacy. The proximate mechanisms responsible for the animacy effect are not yet known, but several possibilities have been suggested in previous research, including attention capture, mortality salience, and mental arousal (Popp & Serra in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 186-201, 2016). Perceived threat of items could be related to any of these three potential proximate mechanisms. Because the characteristic of animacy is sometimes confounded with the perceived threat of the animate items, and because threatening items are often more likely to capture attention (e.g., Blanchette in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1484–1504, 2006), a norming study was first conducted to aid in the creation of lists of threatening and non-threatening animate and inanimate items. Two experiments were then conducted to determine if the animacy effect persisted regardless of the threat level of the items. The first experiment demonstrated the typical animacy advantage as well as a memory advantage for threatening items. The second experiment replicated these results across three successive recall tests as well as in both full attention and divided attention conditions. The results are discussed with respect to the potential proximate mechanisms of attention capture, mortality salience, and mental arousal.

Keywords

Animacy Episodic memory Attention Survival advantage Threat 

Supplementary material

13421_2018_873_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

References

  1. Aslan, A., & John, T. (2016). The development of adaptive memory: Young children show enhanced retention of animacy-related information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 343-350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchette, I. (2006). Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: How specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1484-1504.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonin, P., Gelin, M., & Bugaiska, A. (2014). Animates are better remembered than inanimates: Further evidence from word and picture stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 42, 370-382.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0368-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonin, P., Gelin, M., Laroche, B., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2015). The 'how' of animacy effects in episodic memory. Experimental Psychology, 62, 371-384.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugaiska, A., Grégoire, L., Camblats, A., Gelin, M., Méot, A., & Bonin, P. (in press). Animacy and attentional processes: Evidence from the Stroop task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818771514
  6. Bugaiska, A., Mermillod, M., & Bonin, P. (2015). Does the thought of death contribute to the memory benefit of encoding with a survival scenario?. Memory, 23, 213-232.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.881881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, D.J., Hart, J., & Kramer, M.E. (2014). Dying scenarios improve recall as much as survival scenarios. Memory, 22, 51-64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.795973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calvillo, D.P., & Hawkins, W.C. (2016). Animate objects are detected more frequently than inanimate objects in inattentional blindness tasks independently of threat. Journal of General Psychology, 143, 101-115.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2016.1163249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J.R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate–inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1-34.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craik, F.I.M., & Byrd, M. (1982). Aging and cognitive deficits: The role of attentional resources. In F.I.M. Craik & S.E. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes ((pp. 191 – 211). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dhum, M., Herwig, U., Opialla, S., Siegrist, M., & Brühl, A. B. (2017). Evolutionary and modern image content differentially influence the processing of emotional pictures. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 1-11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erdelyi, M.H., & Becker, J. (1974). Hypermnesia for pictures: Incremental memory for pictures but not words in multiple recall trials. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 159-171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90008-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiacconi, C.M., Dekraker, J., & Köhler, S. (2015). Psychophysiological evidence for the role of emotion in adaptive memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 925-933.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, E., Griggs, L., & Mouchlianitis, E. (2007). The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: Are guns noticed as quickly as snakes?. Emotion, 7, 691-696.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelin, M., Bugaiska, A., Méot, A., & Bonin, P. (2017). Are animacy effects in episodic memory independent of encoding instructions?. Memory, 25, 2-18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1117643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelin, M., Bugaiska, A., Méot, A., Vinter, A., & Bonin, P. (in press). Animacy effects in episodic memory: Do imagery processes really play a role? Memory doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1498108
  17. Guerrero, G., & Calvillo, D.P. (2016). Animacy increases second target reporting in a rapid serial visual presentation task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1832-1838.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1040-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hart, J., & Burns, D.J. (2012). Nothing concentrates the mind: Thoughts of death improve recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 264-269.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0211-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacoby, L.L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513-541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jarvis, B.G. (2014). DirectRT (Version 2014.1.114) [Computer Software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Kazanas, S.A., & Altarriba, J. (2015). The survival advantage: Underlying mechanisms and extant limitations. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 360-396.Google Scholar
  22. Kazanas, S.A., & Altarriba, J. (2017). Did our ancestors fear the unknown? The role of predation in the survival advantage. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 83-91.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kroneisen, M., Rummel, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2014). Working memory load eliminates the survival processing effect. Memory, 22, 92-102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.815217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leding, J. K. (2018). The animacy advantage in memory: Manipulations of levels of processing and survival processing. The American Journal of Psychology, 131, 273-281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, M.M., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2015). Remembering the snake in the grass: Threat enhances recognition but not source memory. Emotion, 15, 721-730.  https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mulligan, N.W., & Hirshman, E. (1997). Measuring the bases of recognition memory: An investigation of the process-dissociation framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 280-304.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.280 Google Scholar
  27. Nairne J.S. (2015). Adaptive memory: Novel findings acquired through forward engineering. In Lindsay, D.S., Kelley, C.M., Yonelinas, A.P., & Roediger, H.L. (Eds.). Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nairne, J.S. (2016). Adaptive memory: Fitness-relevant "tunings" help drive learning and remembering. In C.D. Geary, & B.D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 251-269). Springer International.Google Scholar
  29. Nairne, J.S., Pandeirada, J.N.S., & Fernandes N.L. (2017) Adaptive memory. In J. H. Byrne (Ed.) Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (2nd edition, J. Wixted, Ed.). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nairne, J.S., Pandeirada, J.N.S., & Thompson, S.R. (2008). Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19, 176-180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.263 Google Scholar
  32. Nairne, J.S., VanArsdall, J.E., & Cogdill, M. (2017). Remembering the living: Episodic memory is tuned to animacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 22-27.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416667711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nairne, J.S., VanArsdall, J.E., Pandeirada, J.N.S., Cogdill, M., & LeBreton, J.M. (2013). Adaptive memory: The mnemonic value of animacy. Psychological Science, 24, 2099-2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 16598–16603.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703913104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nouchi, R. (2013). Can the memory enhancement of the survival judgment task be explained by the elaboration hypothesis?: Evidence from a memory load paradigm. Japanese Psychological Research, 55, 58-71.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00531.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 466-478.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olds, J.M., Lanska, M., & Westerman, D.L. (2014). The role of perceived threat in the survival processing memory advantage. Memory, 22, 26-35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.806554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Opfer, J.E., & Gelman, S.A. (2011). Development of the animate-inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 213-238). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Popp, E.Y., & Serra, M.J. (2016). Adaptive memory: Animacy enhances free recall but impairs cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 186-201.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000174 Google Scholar
  40. Popp, E.Y., & Serra, M.J. (2018). The animacy advantage for free recall performance is not attributable to greater mental arousal. Memory, 26, 89-95.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1326507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rakison, D.H., & Poulin-Doubis, D. (2001). The developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 209-228.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roediger, H.L., & Payne, D.G. (1985). Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: A puzzle for generate/recognize theories. Memory & Cognition, 13, 1-7.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rubin, D.C., & Friendly, M. (1986). Predicting which words get recalled: Measures of free recall, availability, goodness, emotionality, and pronunciability for 925 nouns. Memory & Cognition, 14, 79-94.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sha, L., Haxby, J.V., Abdi, H., Guntupalli, J.S., Oosterhof, N.N., Halchenko, Y.O., & Connolly, A.C. (2015). The animacy continuum in the human ventral vision pathway. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 665-678.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soderstrom, N.C., & McCabe, D.P. (2011). Are survival processing memory advantages based on ancestral priorities?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 564-569.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0060-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stillman, C.M., Coane, J.H., Profaci, C.P., Howard, J.J., & Howard, D.V. (2014). The effects of healthy aging on the mnemonic benefit of survival processing. Memory & Cognition, 42, 175-185.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0353-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. VanArsdall, J.E., Nairne, J.S., Pandeirada, J.N.S., & Blunt, J.R. (2013). Adaptive memory: Animacy processing produces mnemonic advantages. Experimental Psychology, 60, 172-178.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. VanArsdall, J.E., Nairne, J.S., Pandeirada, J.S., & Cogdill, M. (2015). Adaptive memory: Animacy effects persist in paired-associate learning. Memory, 23, 657-663.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.916304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191-1207.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yorzinski, J.L., Penkunas, M.J., Platt, M.L., & Coss, R.G. (2014). Dangerous animals capture and maintain attention in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 534-548.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations