Dying to remember, remembering to survive: mortality salience and survival processing.

Processing items for their relevance to survival improves recall for those items relative to numerous other deep processing encoding techniques. Perhaps related, placing individuals in a mortality salient state has also been shown to enhance retention of items encoded after the morality salience manipulation (e.g., in a pleasantness rating task), a phenomenon we dubbed the "dying-to-remember" (DTR) effect. The experiments reported here further explored the effect and tested the possibility that the DTR effect is related to survival processing. Experiment 1 replicated the effect using different encoding tasks, demonstrating that the effect is not dependent on the pleasantness task. In Experiment 2 the DTR effect was associated with increases in item-specific processing, not relational processing, according to several indices. Experiment 3 replicated the main results of Experiment 2, and tested the effects of mortality salience and survival processing within the same experiment. The DTR effect and its associated difference in item-specific processing were completely eliminated when the encoding task required survival processing. These results are consistent with the interpretation that the mechanisms responsible for survival processing and DTR effects are overlapping.

Adaptive memory: the survival scenario enhances item-specific processing relative to a moving scenario.

Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007) found that retention of words rated for their relevance to survival is superior to that of words encoded under numerous other deep processing conditions. They suggested that our memory systems might have evolved to confer an advantage for survival-relevant information. Burns, Burns, and Hwang (2011) suggested a two-process explanation of the proximate mechanisms responsible for the survival advantage. Whereas most control tasks encourage only one type of processing, the survival task encourages both item-specific and relational processing. They found that when control tasks encouraged both types of processing, the survival processing advantage was eliminated. However, none of their control conditions included non-survival scenarios (e.g., moving, vacation, etc.), so it is not clear how this two-process explanation would explain the survival advantage when scenarios are used as control conditions. The present experiments replicated the finding that the survival scenario improves recall relative to a moving scenario in both a between-lists and within-list design and also provided evidence that this difference was accompanied by an item-specific processing difference, not a difference in relational processing. The implications of these results for several existing accounts of the survival processing effect are discussed.