University of Essex

Department of Psychology

Module: PS900

Dissertation

Title: Adaptive memory: The evolutionary significance of survival

processing

Research angle (RELATIONSHIP)

Registration no: 2111879

Date: 21st November, 2022

Word count: 11838

 Adaptive memory: The evolutionary significance of survival processing

Research angle (RELATIONSHIP)

Abstract

Excellent retention results from a few seconds of survival processing, in which individuals
evaluate the relevance of the information to a survival situation. This benefit could mean that
our memory systems are designed to process and store fitness-related information. A criterion
based on fitness was used by natural selection to shape our strategies of memory, which may
account for the existence of such a tuning. Furthermore, recent research suggests that
mnemonic processes that are conventional, like elaborative processing, may be crucial to the
production of practical benefits. Additionally, conditions of the boundary have been
demonstrated, discrediting interpretations of the evolution of the phenomenon. This article
expands on the relationship between adaptive memory and the significance of evolution in
survival processing. This study uses a qualitative model to study the importance of this
relationship. The approach an online survey was used to gather data. The results were
analysed using SPSS, and a comprehensive analysis was given. It was proposed that the
effects of survival processing should be considered part of a broader system of survival
optimization created by nature to assist organisms in overcoming obstacles to survival. The
ability to simulate activities that help prevent or escape future threats is an essential part of
survival optimization. This ability, in turn, is heavily dependent on the precise recall of
relevant information from the past.

Introduction

The process of natural selection plays a vital role in fine-tuning the traits of humans over
generations. An example of such a trait that the process of natural selection has polished over
the years through several generations is human memory. The method of evolution regarding
memory is considered to be of two types. According to one explanation, it could be an
evolved adaption. This evolved adaptation is linked to the functionality and complexity of
memory. The evolved adaptation is said to take place through a set of transformations over
generations and is thought to be the most probable explanation. The other type of memory
evolution is said to be through the development of perceptual processing; however, it is a low
credited explanation.
Nature selects adaptations that promote fitness. The adaptations determined by nature
enhance traits that are focused on conducting successful reproduction. For nature, successful
reproduction is the key to survival and continuation of the world. This successful
reproduction is done through encouraging successful mating strategies or promoting
strategies for survival. In the eyes of an evolutionist, the function of forgetting and
remembering is the act of creating adaptive behavior. This adaptive behavior will eventually
promote successful survival or mating strategies. (Klein, Cosmides, Tooby, & Chance, 2002;
Paivio, 2007; Sherry & Schacter, 1987). The role of nature in promoting fitness concerning
the functioning of modern memory has been under investigation at several laboratories for
the past decade. This is done by studying the footprints of the procedure of selection by
nature. (Nairne, 2005; Nairne, Thompson, & Pandeirada, 2007).

It is understood that the system of human memories is based on the enhancement of fitness by
nature; therefore, when it comes to problems involving fitness, mnemonic processes are
sought after. It is because they are more effective in fitness scenarios. Compared to other
systems, people retain more information with better perception and show better signs of
remembering things when a survival situation is presented. (Nairne, Pandeirada, &
Thompson, 2008).

As seen in mnemonic processing, a tuning process occurs in survival situations. The factors
included in the tuning process are sexual partners (Silverman & Eals, 1992; Smith, Jones,
Feinberg, & Allan, 2012), predators found in nature, for example, lions and tigers (Öhman, &
Mineka, 2001), the things which are factorized in the mode of planning (Klein, Robertson, &
Delton, 2010), items that have fallen to contamination (Nairne, 2015a), and animate objects
(Nairne, Vanarsdall, Pandeirada, Cogdill, & LeBreton, 2013). The benefits of survival
processing explained in the mnemonic processing are well-known; however, there is still
controversy regarding its interpretation of evolution. Other types of mnemonics are used to
describe the benefits traditionally. These mnemonics include distinctive processing,
elaborative processing, and self-referential processing (Erdfelder & Kroneisen, 2014; Howe
& Otgaar, 2013). When it comes to remember, it is not entirely clear how a choice is made
between non-evolutionary and evolutionary remembering; therefore, separating proximate
mechanisms is essential from the evolved function (Scott-Phillips, Dickens, & West, 2011).
An example of relational or elaboration processing can be taken here. It can be pondered
upon if this fundamental process is explained and validated through an evolutionary
interpretation.
Misunderstandings are common when evolutionary interpretation and memory adaptations
are being discussed. It is because the researchers of memory do not often appeal the
evolutionary influences. Moreover, memory researchers are mainly hostile to the
evolutionary approach, due to which controversy and misunderstandings stay in place. This
paper will address the evolutionary significance of survival processing in adaptive memory.
The concept of survival processing in evolutionary adaptation is similar to all other scientific
hypotheses and is treated that way. A proper amount of data is gathered that supports the
hypothesis. However, some researchers have argued that the phenomenon of cognition
regarding evolutionary adaption is flawed. They say that the data supporting this hypothesis
is based on assumptions about ancestral variability and that this supporting material cannot be
verified (e.g., Richardson, 2007).

It should be noted here that evolutionary biologists also make these types of assumptions.
They also run into the same verifications problems but do not let that hinder their research
and still carry on with their hypothesis. In the case of the mnemonic phenomenon, the
grounding of the theory in heritable adaptation is a must. It supports that the phenomenon of
cognition concerning evolutionary adaptations is assumed by everyone and can never be
avoided. Survival processing is also included to include expressions of remembering to
represent the evolution of mnemonics. It should be known that the manifestations of placing
are the consequences of developing the capacity to remember.

Throughout the scientific history of the human world, it is suggested that humans are born
with a blank slate. They fill this blank slate by recording the information given to them by the
environment. Nature has provided the rudimentary systems of perceptive and senses. These
systems are infused with the functions of learning, remembering, and drawing inferences.
There are well-defined rules that are followed by the learning process as they are associated
with the stimuli found in space and time (e.g., Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). People and
researchers argue that experience plays a vital role in the principles of informativeness and
contiguity (Kamin, 1969; Ward, Gallistel, & Balsam, 2013). However, it is most profoundly
believed that the essential properties of signaling an event are learnt through a cognitive tool
kit crafted by the natural selection process (Rescorla, 1988). Nature gives the specifications
regarding the critical stimuli in crib sheets, so only humans learn the essential ones
(Cosmides & Tooby, 2013).
In the case of fitness-relevant events, neutral stimuli are usually associated with them. For
instance, when it comes to bells, they are easily associated with shock or food and are not
conditioned with books or bricks. Here, an unconditioned stimulus means that the response to
an event is not prepared or dependent on learning, as humans are not taught to back away
from a shock or drool in the presence of food. Another example taken here is the recognition
of taste and the involvement of taste buds. Taste is not conditioned with foot shock but is
associated with gastric distress. It is the cue-to-consequence effect (Garcia & Koelling,
1966). The responses of these kinds are thought to be a part of the learning equipment
inherited from ancestors.

According to a few studies on rat pups one day old, signs of selective association in aversion
learning have been found. It supports the theory of inherited learning equipment (Gemberling
& Domjan, 1982; also, Domjan, 2005). Similarly, tunings that are close to this have also been
found in cognitive systems. An example is when babies orient toward faces instead of wall
hangings. It shows that inherited learning equipment is present and supports the adaptive
memory evolution theory regarding survival significance (Kanwisher, 2010). Therefore, it
can be said that human cognitive equipment is shaped by nature.

When it comes to adaptive tuning, the main questions revolve around the degree of
specialization and the influence of natural selection. In the wide range of events, it is agreed
upon that the number of natural selection is very few (e.g., Bolhuis, Brown, Richardson, &
Laland, 2011). It is suggested that the number of links a person generates between any
information in memory and the item being processed depends mainly on what effective
remembering relies on (e.g., Craik & Tulving, 1975). As plenty of other mnemonic effects
are explained by the extent of elaboration, the exact mechanism is used to study and
understand the impact of adaptive memory (e.g., see Howe & Derbish, 2010). Here it should
be noted that when it comes to the relationship between survival processing and evolved
adaptation, the role of elaboration is that survival processing is non-essential.

When exaptations and adaptations are separated, the evolutionary arguments are formed more
intricately. It is pretty much understood that natural selection builds adaptations. These are
usually inherited specializations, and the survival of successful reproduction is based on them
(Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998). Sometimes, the adaptations are
made in such a way that survival is put at risk; however, here, the transformations that are
survival based are mostly related to the immune system, kidneys, lungs, and heart. Thus, the
physical body is prioritized in survival-based adaptations. All these adaptations regarding the
physical body have been perfected over time. For instance, they maintain sufficient oxygen in
the body or remove impurities from the blood.

The elements of sensory processing include processes of memory and prior learning,
processes that detect color, and systems that see the depth in vision. These are the adaptations
that take place in the cognitive domain. The inherited mnemonic architecture also includes
the essential features of remembering. These features include factors like memory
reconstruction and negatively accelerated forgetfulness (Anderson & Schooler, 1991; Nairne
& Pandeirada, 2008a). It has been observed that the other evolved processes build exaptations
which are the traits that promote fitness (Gould & Vrba, 1982). Examples of exaptations
include riding a bicycle or driving a car. These skills are not evolved but are highly
specialized that require the functioning of adaptive consequences. Another example of
cognitive exaptations is the skills of writing and reading. Both these skills need the heavy and
complex influence of adaptive specialization; however, they are not an evolutionary
inheritance as these are the later developments in the history of humans. However, a primary
object recognition system is observed. The elements for language processing are also tied to
it (e.g., Dehaene, Cohen, Sigman, & Vinckier, 2005). The question of survival processing
concerning adaptive memory remains. A theory is put forward which suggests that survival
processing is based on another basic process. The reason for this is that, at times, survival
processing is marked as deep processing. Furthermore, the concept of being based on other
basic processes does not differentiate between exaptation and adaptation.

Understanding the concept of co-opting is essential for differentiating between exaptation and
adaptation. It is observed that some level of co-opting is always involved with adaptation
even when it is said to being from structures that pre-existed (Buller, 2005; Burke, 2014).
Here, an example of the immune system is taken. The functions of the circulatory system are
co-opted by the immune system whereas the immune system in itself is an adaptation
(Chatterjee, 2015). Adaptations always recruit the essential processes for normal responses in
systematic and controlled ways. An example of an evolved adaptation is the flight or fight
response of the body. It helps every organism to respond immediately when there is a threat.
However, the answer is through a co-op system. The system consists of whole stimulus
generation to the message being delivered and generating a response (e.g., Mobbs, Hagan,
Dagleish, Silston, & Prevost, 2015).
The status of the fight or flight response has come out to be a fronted adaptation as it is an
adaptation that guides all the other processes systematically so that fitness can be enhanced.
The context of threat is particular in fight or flight response. This example is suitable here as
the study focuses on the relationship between survival situations and adaptive memory
(Adolphs, 2013). Triggers for the threat are provided and found in the environment; however,
response to the threat is mainly based on learned memory. According to a researcher, the
concept of survival in mnemonic adaptation is quite general; therefore, flexibility in the fight
or flight response is essential (e.g., Klein, 2012; Klein et al., 2010).

The concept of modularity contrasts with the view of adaptation. It is learned through the
fight or flight response that environmental events play a precise and influential role in regards
to adaptation however, the response that is produced is still very specific o fitness
enhancement. A particular modularity concept is usually utilized with evolutionary accounts
for identification purposes. These include encapsulated, reflex-like, automatic modules or
adaptations (Fodor, 1983; Grossi, 2014). According to some researchers, the requirements
found in the Fodorian modules are met by cognitive adaptations. The perceptual and sensory
processing are mainly considered the Fodorian checklist regarding cognitive adaptations and
their functional characteristics (Barrett & Kurzban, 2006; Confer et al., 2010). The cognitive
adaptations can be thought of as specialized programs or functional traits that sometimes
depend on co-opting processes (Cosmides & Tooby, 2013). It will be seen in this paper that
survival processing is also similar to cognitive adaptation in reaching the adaptive end by
depending on other evolved mnemonics.

Methodology

To understand the evolutionary significance of survival processing with adaptive memory,

the research methodology used was survey research. Research through surveys is
characterized as the most common way of exploring a question or a hypothesis utilizing
surveys that scientists send to the study participants. The information gathered from these
studies is then genuinely examined to explore significant aspects of the question. In the
current century, each association is anxious to comprehend the opinion of their clients on
their items or administrations and pursue better business choices. Scientists can lead research
in more than one way; however, surveys are shown to be one of the best and most dependable
examination techniques.
It should be noted that survey research can be either qualitative or quantitative. It highly
depends upon the researcher what type of questionnaires he/her asked in the survey. The
open-ended questions will most likely be qualitative research, and the survey analysis, which
shows results in percentages and substantial numbers, will be a quantitative result. The
survey research conducted for this relationship study inclines towards qualitative research
due to the nature of the questionnaire. An online survey was sent to about two hundred
people who filled it out, and the collected data were analyzed. A web-based survey is a
strategy for extricating data to a hypothesis or a question of matter from an individual or
gathering of people. It comprises organized review questions that persuade the members to
answer.

The survey research can give the researchers admittance to a vast data bank. Associations in
media, different organizations, and even legislatures depend on review exploration to acquire
precise information. The conventional meaning of survey analysis is a quantitative strategy
for gathering data from respondents by asking various overview inquiries. This study type
incorporates the enrolment of people, assortment, and examination of information. It has
helped highlight new aspects and views related to the relationship between the evolutionary
significance of survival processing with adaptive memory while testing the original statement
of the question. Mostly, it's the essential step towards acquiring data about standard points
and leading to more thorough and keen quantitative exploration techniques that can be
discovered. There are numerous circumstances where scientists can lead research utilizing a
mix of qualitative and quantitative systems.

The survey research for any study can be conducted in three ways. These three ways include
online examination, face-to-face interview, and survey through telephones. The method
chosen for conducting the specific type of research depends upon the tools available for the
survey and the time that is at the researcher's disposal.

The survey type that was chosen for this study was online survey research. It was done by
keeping in mind the survey research apparatus and time required to lead available research
that was the most feasible one. Online survey research is one of the most famous review
research techniques today. Survey research directed via phone can be valuable in gathering
information from a more significant target audience segment. The expense associated with
online survey research is very insignificant. There are chances that the finances that go into
telephone survey research are higher than different mediums, and the time required is also
higher. Furthermore, the response that the online survey research receives are exceptionally
astonishing and helpful. The face to face interviews are conducted by the researchers in
circumstances where there is a convoluted issue to settle. The rate of response for this
technique is the most elevated, yet it very well may be exorbitant.

After carefully analyzing all the types of survey research, the online survey research was
decided. The reason for this research methodology is that it consumes much less time and the
response gathered through this is also quite valuable. Another deciding factor is that the
amount of finances for online survey research is meager in comparison to other types of
research. There are five stages through which the online survey was designed for this study.
The stages include choosing the central question of the questionnaire, the difference between
the sample and the target audience must be placed, selecting the perfect survey method,
designing the survey questions according to the hypothesis, sending out the surveys, and then
analyzing the results.

First, the central theme of the survey was decided. The main article in this scenario was about
the relationship between adaptive memory and the evolutionary significance of survival
processing. The sample group was differentiated from the target audience. It is essential as it
helps properly analyze the survey results. It gives clarity for appropriately categorizing the
analytical responses of the questionnaire. The third step included the selection of the perfect
method for conducting the survey. Here, the technique utilized was creating the study on an
online portal and sending it to two hundred participants by generating a link to the study.
After deciding on the survey method, the questions were crafted, which were put in a certain
way so that the respondents would answer them through the processes of survival processing
and sometimes using adaptive memory skills.

Once the survey was ready, an online link was generated and sent to the respondents through
which they accessed it and responded to it. Then the results were gathered and analyzed with
the help of survey analyzing software.

Results

The survey was mainly divided into three sections. The sections included word relevance,
word memory, and rating words to scenarios or other terms. The survey was set to people
through online means, and a total of two hundred and fifteen people filled out the survey.
Multiple tests were run on SPSS for the understanding of the results. The tests that were run
included pair T-test, standard deviation, ANOVA, and variance. Furthermore, we checked the
mean, median, and mode of the gathered answers.

The logistics of the answers to the survey showed that people took a lot of time while
answering the questions. The relevance to the survival processing questions also had a high
consumption time. It was also seen most of the people did not remember more than six to
seven words that they went through within the survey. It is also worth mentioning that the
words that appeared in the answers were mostly related to survival, which showed that
survival-processing words had a positive relationship with adaptive memory. However, this
was not the case for all of the answers. In most cases, people could not even write down
random words and it was also seen that people could not recall the lucky colors in the survey.

The data's standard deviation and variance showed that the survey results were quite
dispersed. The paired T-test also showed that the means were similar for the time to attempt
the survey questions.

Frequency Table
montains
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 68 6.5 34.0 34.0
little experiece 86 8.2 43.0 77.0
experice 24 2.3 12.0 89.0
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 97.0
very strong 6 .6 3.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

juice
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 26 2.5 13.0 13.0
little experiece 70 6.7 35.0 48.0
experice 40 3.8 20.0 68.0
Valid strong experience 48 4.6 24.0 92.0
very strong 16 1.5 8.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

two
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 30 2.9 15.0 15.0
little experiece 160 15.2 80.0 95.0
Valid experice 6 .6 3.0 98.0
very strong 4 .4 2.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

appartment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 10 1.0 5.0 5.0
little experiece 58 5.5 29.0 34.0
experice 50 4.8 25.0 59.0
Valid strong experience 58 5.5 29.0 88.0
very strong 24 2.3 12.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

silk
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 91 8.7 45.5 45.5
little experiece 61 5.8 30.5 76.0
experice 32 3.0 16.0 92.0
Valid strong experience 6 .6 3.0 95.0
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

bear
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 70 6.7 35.0 35.0
little experiece 76 7.2 38.0 73.0
experice 22 2.1 11.0 84.0
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 92.0
very strong 14 1.3 7.0 99.0
55 2 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

flood
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
 no experices 48 4.6 24.0 24.0
little experiece 76 7.2 38.0 62.0
experice 32 3.0 16.0 78.0
Valid strong experience 32 3.0 16.0 94.0
very strong 12 1.1 6.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

doctor
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 40 3.8 20.0 20.0
little experiece 67 6.4 33.5 53.5
experice 37 3.5 18.5 72.0
Valid strong experience 40 3.8 20.0 92.0
very strong 16 1.5 8.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

man
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 13 1.2 6.5 6.5
little experiece 45 4.3 22.5 29.0
experice 51 4.8 25.5 54.5
Valid strong experience 50 4.8 25.0 79.5
very strong 41 3.9 20.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

horse
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 91 8.7 45.5 45.5
little experiece 60 5.7 30.0 75.5
experice 32 3.0 16.0 91.5
Valid strong experience 7 .7 3.5 95.0
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

river
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid no experices 72 6.8 36.0 36.0
little experiece 74 7.0 37.0 73.0
 experice 22 2.1 11.0 84.0
strong experience 17 1.6 8.5 92.5
very strong 13 1.2 6.5 99.0
55 2 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

family
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 14 1.3 7.0 7.0
little experiece 51 4.8 25.5 32.5
experice 52 4.9 26.0 58.5
Valid strong experience 48 4.6 24.0 82.5
very strong 35 3.3 17.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

sea
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 70 6.7 35.0 35.0
little experiece 76 7.2 38.0 73.0
experice 23 2.2 11.5 84.5
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 92.5
very strong 13 1.2 6.5 99.0
55 2 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

soil
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 30 2.9 15.0 15.0
little experiece 70 6.7 35.0 50.0
experice 37 3.5 18.5 68.5
Valid strong experience 48 4.6 24.0 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

boy
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid no experices 14 1.3 7.0 7.0
little experiece 45 4.3 22.5 29.5
 experice 50 4.8 25.0 54.5
strong experience 50 4.8 25.0 79.5
very strong 41 3.9 20.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

one
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 166 15.8 83.0 83.0
little experiece 20 1.9 10.0 93.0
experice 6 .6 3.0 96.0
Valid strong experience 4 .4 2.0 98.0
11 4 .4 2.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

metal
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 19 1.8 9.5 9.5
little experiece 50 4.8 25.0 34.5
experice 58 5.5 29.0 63.5
Valid strong experience 43 4.1 21.5 85.0
very strong 30 2.9 15.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

sugar
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 48 4.6 24.0 24.0
little experiece 77 7.3 38.5 62.5
experice 32 3.0 16.0 78.5
Valid strong experience 32 3.0 16.0 94.5
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

truck
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid no experices 82 7.8 41.0 41.0
little experiece 74 7.0 37.0 78.0
experice 23 2.2 11.5 89.5
strong experience 13 1.2 6.5 96.0
 very strong 8 .8 4.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

aunt
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 29 2.8 14.5 14.5
little experiece 69 6.6 34.5 49.0
experice 38 3.6 19.0 68.0
Valid strong experience 49 4.7 24.5 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

cathedral
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 40 3.8 20.0 20.0
little experiece 71 6.7 35.5 55.5
experice 35 3.3 17.5 73.0
Valid strong experience 38 3.6 19.0 92.0
very strong 16 1.5 8.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

soccer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 63 6.0 31.5 31.5
little experiece 66 6.3 33.0 64.5
experice 31 2.9 15.5 80.0
Valid strong experience 28 2.7 14.0 94.0
very strong 12 1.1 6.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

emerald
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid no experices 52 4.9 26.0 26.0
little experiece 115 10.9 57.5 83.5
experice 14 1.3 7.0 90.5
strong experience 8 .8 4.0 94.5
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
 Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

lime
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 51 4.8 25.5 25.5
little experiece 77 7.3 38.5 64.0
experice 31 2.9 15.5 79.5
Valid strong experience 30 2.9 15.0 94.5
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

bird
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 38 3.6 19.0 19.0
little experiece 69 6.6 34.5 53.5
experice 37 3.5 18.5 72.0
Valid strong experience 39 3.7 19.5 91.5
very strong 17 1.6 8.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

four
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 59 5.6 29.5 29.5
little experiece 65 6.2 32.5 62.0
experice 35 3.3 17.5 79.5
Valid strong experience 28 2.7 14.0 93.5
very strong 13 1.2 6.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

ladies
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid no experices 50 4.8 25.0 25.0
little experiece 116 11.0 58.0 83.0
experice 16 1.5 8.0 91.0
strong experience 8 .8 4.0 95.0
very strong 9 .9 4.5 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
 Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

meadows
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 32 3.0 16.0 16.0
little experiece 111 10.6 55.5 71.5
experice 22 2.1 11.0 82.5
Valid strong experience 24 2.3 12.0 94.5
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

python
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 50 4.8 25.0 25.0
little experiece 76 7.2 38.0 63.0
experice 31 2.9 15.5 78.5
Valid strong experience 32 3.0 16.0 94.5
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

rod
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 47 4.5 23.5 23.5
little experiece 77 7.3 38.5 62.0
experice 31 2.9 15.5 77.5
Valid strong experience 34 3.2 17.0 94.5
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

chair
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 30 2.9 15.0 15.0
little experiece 115 10.9 57.5 72.5
experice 22 2.1 11.0 83.5
Valid strong experience 23 2.2 11.5 95.0
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

dirt
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 22 2.1 11.0 11.0
little experiece 106 10.1 53.0 64.0
experice 28 2.7 14.0 78.0
Valid strong experience 29 2.8 14.5 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

stem
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 59 5.6 29.5 29.5
little experiece 66 6.3 33.0 62.5
experice 34 3.2 17.0 79.5
Valid strong experience 28 2.7 14.0 93.5
very strong 13 1.2 6.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

needle
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 76 7.2 38.0 38.0
little experiece 76 7.2 38.0 76.0
experice 21 2.0 10.5 86.5
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 94.5
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

settlement
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 47 4.5 23.5 23.5
little experiece 78 7.4 39.0 62.5
experice 33 3.1 16.5 79.0
Valid strong experience 31 2.9 15.5 94.5
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 53 5.0 26.5 26.5
little experiece 118 11.2 59.0 85.5
experice 14 1.3 7.0 92.5
Valid strong experience 9 .9 4.5 97.0
very strong 6 .6 3.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

musician
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 48 4.6 24.0 24.0
little experiece 55 5.2 27.5 51.5
experice 37 3.5 18.5 70.0
Valid strong experience 32 3.0 16.0 86.0
very strong 27 2.6 13.5 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

husband
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 79 7.5 39.5 39.5
little experiece 72 6.8 36.0 75.5
experice 29 2.8 14.5 90.0
Valid strong experience 12 1.1 6.0 96.0
very strong 8 .8 4.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

dinner
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 72 6.8 36.0 36.0
little experiece 74 7.0 37.0 73.0
experice 23 2.2 11.5 84.5
Valid strong experience 19 1.8 9.5 94.0
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

three
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 17 1.6 8.5 8.5
little experiece 59 5.6 29.5 38.0
experice 51 4.8 25.5 63.5
Valid strong experience 49 4.7 24.5 88.0
very strong 24 2.3 12.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

blood
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 75 7.1 37.5 37.5
little experiece 77 7.3 38.5 76.0
experice 20 1.9 10.0 86.0
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 94.0
very strong 11 1.0 5.5 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

forest
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 30 2.9 15.0 15.0
little experiece 71 6.7 35.5 50.5
experice 38 3.6 19.0 69.5
Valid strong experience 46 4.4 23.0 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

prairie
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 62 5.9 31.0 31.0
little experiece 107 10.2 53.5 84.5
experice 21 2.0 10.5 95.0
Valid strong experience 2 .2 1.0 96.0
very strong 8 .8 4.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

camp
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 91 8.7 45.5 45.5
little experiece 69 6.6 34.5 80.0
experice 25 2.4 12.5 92.5
Valid strong experience 8 .8 4.0 96.5
very strong 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

carbon
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 69 6.6 34.5 34.5
little experiece 85 8.1 42.5 77.0
experice 23 2.2 11.5 88.5
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 96.5
very strong 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

five
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 27 2.6 13.5 13.5
little experiece 71 6.7 35.5 49.0
experice 39 3.7 19.5 68.5
Valid strong experience 48 4.6 24.0 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

snake
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 29 2.8 14.5 14.5
little experiece 158 15.0 79.0 93.5
experice 8 .8 4.0 97.5
Valid strong experience 1 .1 .5 98.0
very strong 4 .4 2.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0
 door
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 12 1.1 6.0 6.0
little experiece 58 5.5 29.0 35.0
experice 49 4.7 24.5 59.5
Valid strong experience 57 5.4 28.5 88.0
very strong 24 2.3 12.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

pan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 60 5.7 30.0 30.0
little experiece 65 6.2 32.5 62.5
experice 34 3.2 17.0 79.5
Valid strong experience 29 2.8 14.5 94.0
very strong 12 1.1 6.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

snow
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 74 7.0 37.0 37.0
little experiece 78 7.4 39.0 76.0
experice 21 2.0 10.5 86.5
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 94.5
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

strom
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 50 4.8 25.0 25.0
little experiece 78 7.4 39.0 64.0
experice 31 2.9 15.5 79.5
Valid strong experience 31 2.9 15.5 95.0
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0
 summit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 53 5.0 26.5 26.5
little experiece 119 11.3 59.5 86.0
experice 14 1.3 7.0 93.0
Valid strong experience 9 .9 4.5 97.5
very strong 5 .5 2.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

garden
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 16 1.5 8.0 8.0
little experiece 45 4.3 22.5 30.5
experice 48 4.6 24.0 54.5
Valid
strong experience 49 4.7 24.5 79.0
very strong 42 4.0 21.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

finger
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 93 8.8 46.5 46.5
little experiece 63 6.0 31.5 78.0
experice 27 2.6 13.5 91.5
Valid strong experience 8 .8 4.0 95.5
very strong 9 .9 4.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

silver
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 72 6.8 36.0 36.0
little experiece 72 6.8 36.0 72.0
experice 22 2.1 11.0 83.0
Valid strong experience 17 1.6 8.5 91.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 99.0
55 2 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0
 flute
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 12 1.1 6.0 6.0
little experiece 54 5.1 27.0 33.0
experice 57 5.4 28.5 61.5
Valid strong experience 46 4.4 23.0 84.5
very strong 31 2.9 15.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

broccoli
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 72 6.8 36.0 36.0
little experiece 73 6.9 36.5 72.5
experice 23 2.2 11.5 84.0
Valid strong experience 16 1.5 8.0 92.0
very strong 14 1.3 7.0 99.0
55 2 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

eagle
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 26 2.5 13.0 13.0
little experiece 72 6.8 36.0 49.0
experice 40 3.8 20.0 69.0
Valid strong experience 47 4.5 23.5 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

woman
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 40 3.8 20.0 20.0
little experiece 70 6.7 35.0 55.0
experice 37 3.5 18.5 73.5
Valid strong experience 37 3.5 18.5 92.0
very strong 16 1.5 8.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

insect
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 60 5.7 30.0 30.0
little experiece 65 6.2 32.5 62.5
experice 35 3.3 17.5 80.0
Valid strong experience 27 2.6 13.5 93.5
very strong 13 1.2 6.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

king
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 57 5.4 28.5 28.5
little experiece 109 10.4 54.5 83.0
experice 14 1.3 7.0 90.0
Valid strong experience 9 .9 4.5 94.5
very strong 10 1.0 5.0 99.5
55 1 .1 .5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

troops
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 49 4.7 24.5 24.5
little experiece 74 7.0 37.0 61.5
experice 33 3.1 16.5 78.0
Valid strong experience 32 3.0 16.0 94.0
very strong 12 1.1 6.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

shoes
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 70 6.7 35.0 35.0
little experiece 84 8.0 42.0 77.0
experice 21 2.0 10.5 87.5
Valid strong experience 18 1.7 9.0 96.5
very strong 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

clothing
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 24 2.3 12.0 12.0
little experiece 54 5.1 27.0 39.0
experice 44 4.2 22.0 61.0
Valid strong experience 49 4.7 24.5 85.5
very strong 29 2.8 14.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

board
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 23 2.2 11.5 11.5
little experiece 105 10.0 52.5 64.0
experice 28 2.7 14.0 78.0
Valid strong experience 29 2.8 14.5 92.5
very strong 15 1.4 7.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

formation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 60 5.7 30.0 30.0
little experiece 59 5.6 29.5 59.5
experice 34 3.2 17.0 76.5
Valid strong experience 29 2.8 14.5 91.0
very strong 18 1.7 9.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

village
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 62 5.9 31.0 31.0
little experiece 64 6.1 32.0 63.0
experice 28 2.7 14.0 77.0
Valid strong experience 28 2.7 14.0 91.0
very strong 16 1.5 8.0 99.0
55 2 .2 1.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

queen
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 51 4.8 25.5 25.5
little experiece 71 6.7 35.5 61.0
experice 31 2.9 15.5 76.5
Valid strong experience 34 3.2 17.0 93.5
very strong 13 1.2 6.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

drink
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
no experices 29 2.8 14.5 14.5
little experiece 70 6.7 35.0 49.5
experice 37 3.5 18.5 68.0
Valid strong experience 48 4.6 24.0 92.0
very strong 16 1.5 8.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string1seconddigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 8 .8 4.0 97.0
Valid 11 6 .6 3.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string1fiffthdigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 185 17.6 92.5 92.5
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.0
Valid 11 8 .8 4.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string2seconddigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
Valid 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string2fifthdigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
Valid 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string3firstdigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
Valid 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string3fifthdigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
Valid 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string4secondigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
Valid 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string4forthdigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string5thirddigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 186 17.7 93.0 93.0
wrong 7 .7 3.5 96.5
Valid 11 7 .7 3.5 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

string5forthdigit
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
correct 148 14.1 74.0 74.0
wrong 48 4.6 24.0 98.0
Valid 11 4 .4 2.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

sex
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
male 100 9.5 50.0 50.0
Valid female 100 9.5 50.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 852 81.0 81.0 81.0
19 11 1.0 1.0 82.0
20 8 .8 .8 82.8
21 19 1.8 1.8 84.6
22 15 1.4 1.4 86.0
23 15 1.4 1.4 87.5
24 11 1.0 1.0 88.5
25 7 .7 .7 89.2
26 12 1.1 1.1 90.3
27 15 1.4 1.4 91.7
28 21 2.0 2.0 93.7
29 11 1.0 1.0 94.8
30 4 .4 .4 95.2
 31 10 1.0 1.0 96.1
32 7 .7 .7 96.8
33 8 .8 .8 97.5
34 4 .4 .4 97.9
35 7 .7 .7 98.6
37 3 .3 .3 98.9
38 4 .4 .4 99.2
43 4 .4 .4 99.6
44 4 .4 .4 100.0
Total 1052 100.0 100.0

country
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
852 81.0 81.0 81.0
canada 4 .4 .4 81.4
pk 76 7.2 7.2 88.6
Valid uk 104 9.9 9.9 98.5
usa 16 1.5 1.5 100.0
Total 1052 100.0 100.0

residence
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
852 81.0 81.0 81.0
canada 4 .4 .4 81.4
pk 76 7.2 7.2 88.6
Valid uk 104 9.9 9.9 98.5
usa 16 1.5 1.5 100.0
Total 1052 100.0 100.0

englishistlang
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
yes 124 11.8 62.0 62.0
Valid no 76 7.2 38.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

sexualorientatin
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
heterosexual 166 15.8 83.0 83.0
homosexual 20 1.9 10.0 93.0
bisexual 6 .6 3.0 96.0
Valid other 4 .4 2.0 98.0
11 4 .4 2.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

relationship
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
single 60 5.7 30.0 30.0
less than 12 months 63 6.0 31.5 61.5
more than 24 months 36 3.4 18.0 79.5
Valid married 29 2.8 14.5 94.0
divorced 12 1.1 6.0 100.0
Total 200 19.0 100.0
Missing System 852 81.0
Total 1052 100.0

nearestyear
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
20 3 .3 10.0 10.0
21 8 .8 26.7 36.7
Valid 22 19 1.8 63.3 100.0
Total 30 2.9 100.0
Missing System 1022 97.1
Total 1052 100.0

nearestmonth
Frequency Percent
Missing System 1052 100.0

MEAN

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
montains * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
juice * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
two * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
appartment * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
silk * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
bear * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
flood * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
doctor * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
man * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
horse * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
river * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
family * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sea * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
soil * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
boy * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
one * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
metal * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sugar * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
truck * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
aunt * age 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
montains * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
juice * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
two * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
appartment * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
silk * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
bear * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
flood * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
doctor * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
man * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
horse * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
river * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
family * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sea * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
soil * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
boy * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
one * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
metal * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sugar * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
truck * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
aunt * sex 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
montains * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
juice * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
two * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
appartment * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
silk * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
bear * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
flood * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
doctor * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
man * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
horse * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
river * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
family * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sea * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
soil * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
boy * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
one * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
metal * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sugar * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
truck * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
aunt * country 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
montains * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
juice * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
two * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
appartment * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
silk * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
bear * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
flood * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
doctor * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
man * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
horse * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
river * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
family * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sea * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
soil * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
boy * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
one * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
metal * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
sugar * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
truck * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%
 aunt * residence 200 19.0% 852 81.0% 1052 100.0%

T- TEST

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2- Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the
tailed) Differen Difference
ce Lower Upper
montain
27.959 199 .000 2.030 1.89 2.17
s
juice 33.432 199 .000 2.790 2.63 2.95
two 45.842 199 .000 1.940 1.86 2.02
appartm
39.772 199 .000 3.140 2.98 3.30
ent
silk 24.892 199 .000 1.915 1.76 2.07
bear 6.960 199 .000 2.660 1.91 3.41
flood 28.815 199 .000 2.420 2.25 2.59
doctor 30.091 199 .000 2.625 2.45 2.80
man 38.559 199 .000 3.305 3.14 3.47
horse 24.796 199 .000 1.925 1.77 2.08
river 6.920 199 .000 2.645 1.89 3.40
family 37.599 199 .000 3.195 3.03 3.36
sea 6.937 199 .000 2.650 1.90 3.40
soil 32.409 199 .000 2.740 2.57 2.91
boy 38.105 199 .000 3.295 3.12 3.47
one 13.433 199 .000 1.420 1.21 1.63
metal 36.156 199 .000 3.075 2.91 3.24
sugar 28.975 199 .000 2.405 2.24 2.57
truck 25.796 199 .000 1.955 1.81 2.10
aunt 32.761 199 .000 2.760 2.59 2.93
cathedra
29.880 199 .000 2.595 2.42 2.77
l
soccer 26.670 199 .000 2.300 2.13 2.47
emerald 8.426 199 .000 2.305 1.77 2.84
lime 28.485 199 .000 2.365 2.20 2.53
bird 30.303 199 .000 2.640 2.47 2.81
four 27.225 199 .000 2.355 2.18 2.53
ladies 8.458 199 .000 2.310 1.77 2.85
meadow
31.406 199 .000 2.355 2.21 2.50
s
python 28.618 199 .000 2.390 2.23 2.55
rod 29.074 199 .000 2.425 2.26 2.59
chair 32.147 199 .000 2.340 2.20 2.48
dirt 32.665 199 .000 2.545 2.39 2.70
stem 27.181 199 .000 2.350 2.18 2.52
needle 8.319 199 .000 2.300 1.75 2.85
settleme
29.189 199 .000 2.405 2.24 2.57
nt
string 31.609 199 .000 1.985 1.86 2.11
musician 10.533 199 .000 2.935 2.39 3.48
husband 26.293 199 .000 1.990 1.84 2.14
dinner 8.578 199 .000 2.375 1.83 2.92
three 36.537 199 .000 3.020 2.86 3.18
blood 8.367 199 .000 2.315 1.77 2.86
forest 32.380 199 .000 2.725 2.56 2.89
prairie 30.315 199 .000 1.935 1.81 2.06
camp 25.734 199 .000 1.855 1.71 2.00
carbon 27.449 199 .000 2.035 1.89 2.18
five 33.206 199 .000 2.765 2.60 2.93
snake 44.746 199 .000 1.965 1.88 2.05
door 38.813 199 .000 3.115 2.96 3.27
pan 27.185 199 .000 2.340 2.17 2.51
snow 8.360 199 .000 2.310 1.77 2.85
strom 28.802 199 .000 2.365 2.20 2.53
summit 32.325 199 .000 1.970 1.85 2.09
garden 37.146 199 .000 3.280 3.11 3.45
finger 24.777 199 .000 1.885 1.73 2.04
silver 6.993 199 .000 2.675 1.92 3.43
flute 38.423 199 .000 3.150 2.99 3.31
broccoli 6.945 199 .000 2.655 1.90 3.41
eagle 33.449 199 .000 2.765 2.60 2.93
woman 29.980 199 .000 2.595 2.42 2.77
insect 27.094 199 .000 2.340 2.17 2.51
king 8.356 199 .000 2.290 1.75 2.83
troops 28.713 199 .000 2.420 2.25 2.59
shoes 27.091 199 .000 2.040 1.89 2.19
clothing 34.009 199 .000 3.025 2.85 3.20
board 32.461 199 .000 2.540 2.39 2.69
formatio
26.486 199 .000 2.430 2.25 2.61
n
village 7.538 199 .000 2.880 2.13 3.63
queen 28.181 199 .000 2.435 2.26 2.61
drink 32.531 199 .000 2.760 2.59 2.93
string1s
econddi 11.054 199 .000 1.340 1.10 1.58
git
string1fif
10.323 199 .000 1.435 1.16 1.71
fthdigit
string2s
econddi 10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
git
string2fif
10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
thdigit
string3fir
10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
stdigit
string3fif
10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
thdigit
string4s
10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
econdigit
string4fo
10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
rthdigit
string5th
10.617 199 .000 1.385 1.13 1.64
irddigit
string5fo
14.200 199 .000 1.440 1.24 1.64
rthdigit
sex 42.320 199 .000 1.500 1.43 1.57
englishis
40.107 199 .000 1.380 1.31 1.45
tlang
sexualori
13.433 199 .000 1.420 1.21 1.63
entatin
relations
27.273 199 .000 2.350 2.18 2.52
hip
nearesty
173.078 29 .000 21.533 21.28 21.79
ear
The results suggested that the positive relationship between the two variables is not quite
strong and may depend on other factors. For this purpose, it is recommended that visual aid is
provided in the survey to check the response of participants. A factor that was not utilized in
this study.

Discussion

The current study brings the survival-processing effect to light in fundamental ways. It
looked at the benefit of survival processing memory for adaptive memory in this experiment.
To see if survival processing might have evolutionary significance for adaptive memory,
context memory for various episodic details was particularly interesting to us. Two are our
main findings. Following a growing body of research, we found that items processed in the
survival condition were better remembered than those processed. It was called the survival
item memory advantage. Second, it was found that survival processing memory was better
with color context than with source. In general, these data lend credence to the hypothesis
that particular details that contextual are particularly indicative of the survival utility of the
items that were studied benefit from survival processing memory.

Negative Scenarios

According to Kensinger in 2007, negativity significantly impacts memory, so it may appear

possible to attribute the survival memory advantage to the adverse scenario. However, not all
aspects of memory are positively affected by negativity. According to Kensinger in 2017,
negative emotional states are known to impair memory for numerous situational detail,
whereas emotional valence does not affect other aspects of memory. Therefore, in the
survival-processing paradigm, it is not entirely clear whether negativity would increase the
recall of neutral words (Bell et al., 2013). The present results show that the survival-
processing advantage can be explained as a significant variable without negativity. According
to studies, the negative account predicted that memory would improve after survival ratings
rather than suicide ratings. The endurance rating task beat the control conditions for review,
which went against these expectations. A straightforward negativity theory would seem to
indicate that more than thinking about survival, thinking about death would improve memory.

Comparing the current findings to those of more recent studies that have found no benefit
from the evolutionary survival scenario to newly designed methods that could be presumed to
elicit emotional responses is interesting. In addition, good recall performance was observed in
a space survival scenario. On the other hand, the outer-space survival scenario used by
previous researchers is significantly different and requires participants to evaluate the items
based on their fitness-enhancing effects. In contrast, this study required participants to assess
things based on their feelings and emotions.

Ideas about various practical applications of items that might be useful for survival
processing may increase the availability of self-generated retrieval cues (Meyers et al., 2020).
According to the richness-of-encoding theory, increased elaboration during encoding is the
reason for the survival-processing advantage. More specifically, it has been suggested that the
survival scenario is well-suited for eliciting a wide range of ideas.

In this review, we tracked down proof that memory related to stuff was better for materials
handled in endurance, which is reliable with earlier work. By employing an intentional design
of memory where participants were aware of the test of memory coming up, we could
demonstrate this effect, which extends previous research that has primarily utilized incidental
memory designs where participants were unaware of the upcoming memory test. It is
important because it suggests that survival processing improves adaptive memory even if you
don't intend to remember anything. Under various conditions, survival processing frequently
results in enhanced adaptive memory, for instance, when compared to multiple control tasks
with visual stimuli in children and adults.

The findings of this experiment lend credence to the hypothesis that survival processing is a
powerful memory technique that improves adaptive memory. Although we discovered a
survival processing effect on adaptive memory, the impact of plausibility was not observed
on item memory as it was not studied. It suggests that plausible item coloring had no effect
on following decisions regarding the recognition of items. Despite the fact that there was no
evidence available for this in this study, it is possible that things that are presented in colors
that are implausible, like a bear of green color, caused effects that are bizarre (McDaniel and
Einstein, 1986), making those items more distinct and, consequently, more memorable.

The primary goal of this study was to find out how memory for various contextual details is
affected by survival processing. Suppose survival processing truly reflects an adaptive use of
memory. In this case, the memory of a few facts that are likely relevant to survival, such as
the location of a food source, is reflected. Object color (Clark and Bruno, 2016) should
demonstrate the benefit of survival context memory. According to Barrett in 2010, color may
provide essential and valuable indicative knowledge about food for utilization or the ferocity
of a predator; memory may be susceptible to these particulars, indicating an adaptive memory
use.

Interestingly, items endorsed as relevant or somewhat relevant in the survival processing

condition received high relevancy ratings for both high- and low-plausibility items, despite
finding no correlation between relevancy ratings and adaptive memory. However, since we
did not anticipate a difference in color context memory in the survival processing condition
between high and low credibility items, we consider this possibility to be less likely. When
considering things for their survival utility, high-plausibility items have better context
memory than low-plausibility items. This finding is consistent with previous research that
found improvements in context memory for specific details that tap into items' survival
relevance. According to Clark and Bruno in 2016, survival processing conditions may make
precise details particularly memorable.

The advantage of adaptive memory in survival processing we observed in these data has been
the subject of the discussion thus far. However, a crucial question is whether or not these
effects may, in part, be attributable to known memory mechanisms. Understanding potential
memory mechanisms, such as proximate mechanisms, that might partially account for the
survival processing memory advantage has been the focus of previous research on the effects
of survival processing. Even though the literature does not support all of the accounts, such as
an interactive imagery mechanism (Kroneisen et al., 2013), others may be able to explain the
effects of survival processing partially. One such explanation is that in comparison to non-
survival control conditions, survival processing results in enhanced item-specific processing.
It is the processing of items in a way that makes that item sufficiently distinct from other
things on a memory test and enhanced relational processing of studied items that, is the
processing of the relationship between the object and other features such as list membership
or further contextual details (Burns et al., 2011).

In these data, there was evidence for both mechanisms enhancing item-specific and relational
processing. Past work has shown that acknowledgment memory trials of the sort we utilized
in this examination are particularly delicate to upgraded thing precise handling (Burns et al.,
2011). It is possible that the item memory effect we observed was caused by survival
processing leading to enhanced item-specific processing compared to the moving condition.
This account of enhanced item-specific and relational processing also suggests that survival
processing causes enhanced relational processing in addition to enhanced item-specific
processing. Work in another memory domain which is the generation effect has demonstrated
that enhanced relational processing leads to increased performance for context memory.
However, some of the earlier research on enhanced relational processing has focused on how
survival processing improves memory across trials, for example, across related lists of related
items (McCurdy et al., 2020).

In light of this, it's possible that survival processing conditions resulted in enhanced relational
processing between the item and its relevance. Our findings on the item and the relevance
context support the idea that survival processing improves item-specific and relational
processing. It helps us comprehend the memory effects of survival processing observed in the
literature. Although it is argued that a survival processing effect in source memory should be
robust, According to (Nairne, 2010), numerous studies, including the present one, have failed
to demonstrate such a memory advantage as opposed to those that have (Misirlisoy et al.
2019). There may be a source memory survival processing advantage, but it might be small
and harder to find given these mixed results.

Indeed, even when the difference does not reach significance, a careful examination of
previous research into the effects of source memory reveals that the survival processing
condition has numerically superior source memory (Hou & Liu, 2019). According to
(Misirlisoy et al., 2019), the survival processing effect may be small and unreliable. As a
result, only two of the four experiments provided full support for a survival processing effect
in source memory. It is consistent with the idea that the source context's survival processing
effect is accurate but unreliable.

The absence of a survival source context memory advantage as a common finding in the
literature is curious and perhaps even surprising. After all, it's easy to argue that thinking
about how valuable things are for survival should be enough to give people an advantage in
processing information for survival. Instead, contemplating survival utility alone is
insufficient to provide a trustworthy source context memory advantage. Therefore, before a
source context memory advantage can be observed, it may be necessary to consider an item
essential to survival. This possibility is consistent with congruity effects found in previous
studies of survival processing, which show that the memory advantage is only increased for
items most relevant to a survival context (Butler et al., 2009). However, it is essential to note
that our data do not support this possibility because we found no significant correlation
between relevance ratings at encoding and performance in context memory. Additional
research is required to comprehend better why a source context memory effect is not a
reliable finding.

We demonstrated a survival processing memory advantage in this experiment. Because

remembering specific types of survival-relevant information, such as the location of a food
source, could enable one to plan for survival in the future, this memory phenomenon may be
adaptive. Indeed, research in other fields suggests that information about upcoming events is
more easily remembered than information that does not involve planning for the future. That,
in turn, is in line with other studies that claim people use what is stored in their memories to
prepare for the future (Frankenstein et al., 2020). According to the current research, better
memory for highly plausible items, like a red apple, may help plan the future, like figuring
out when food is ready to eat. These findings suggest that memory prioritizes information
relevant to preparing for the future, such as one's ability to survive, which may have been
shaped in our evolutionary past. An important goal is finding ways to improve memory
(Butler et al., 2009), and this work adds to a larger body of research looking into improving
memory.

Even though we discovered evidence of a processing memory advantage for the item, it is
essential to discuss the limitations of this work and how they might be addressed in
subsequent research. Since participants were asked to report which encoding condition items
were being studied, our source context memory measure was first linked to the encoding
condition. In the memory literature, this is a standard procedure (Johnson et al., 1993), as
well as in studies of survival processing (Savine et al., 2011). A different source task
unrelated to the encoding scheme, such as list membership, might be used in future research
on source context memory effects under survival processing conditions. This paper's findings
on source context memory may be extended by such research. We used low-plausible items
that were, by definition, uncommon. It's possible that these items caused phenomena like
bizarre effects, making them more unique and, as a result, more memorable.

Even though this manipulation did not affect memory in either of the conditions, it was less
likely to affect our main finding. However, future research on color context effects might use
different materials, like items that are all plausible colors but still convey fitness. Thirdly,
color provides essential diagnostic information about food and predators. However, we also
included a small number of items that do not fall into these categories, such as inanimate
objects, so the color may not be as valuable for these items. Fourth, even though analyses
revealed that relevancy ratings did not interact with a condition in our memory measures, nor
did plausibility affect relevancy ratings across conditions, it is still possible that memory was
influenced by the state, probability, and relevancy ratings. Since this experiment was not
designed to examine all three factors simultaneously, future research should employ designs
capable of doing so, such as adding more stimuli to each condition.

Conclusion

Emotional and cognitive explanations have been proposed to explain the effect on the
memory of survival processing (APA PsycNet, n.d.). The findings of previous studies that
looked into the part played by emotions in the survival processing effect were inconclusive.
Under certain of these studies (Kang et al., 2008; Smeets et al., 2011), the current discoveries
propose that impacts of feelings and mortality notability on memory can't be viewed as
significant factors expected to make sense of the endurance handling memory advantage. It
suggests that thinking about survival is distinct from thinking about death and life-threatening
situations. Under previous research (APA PsycNet, n.d.), the consequences propose that
contemplating substantial conceivable purposes of things may be a significant part of
endurance handling. Therefore, future research should investigate the significance of
survival-focused elaboration in greater depth. In conclusion, the overall pattern of results is in
line with the richness-of-encoding theory and an evolutionary perspective. The current
findings, on the other hand, disprove explanations of the survival-processing effect based on
mortality salience or negative arousal.

In general, in accordance with previous research, we discovered evidence of an item memory

benefit under the survival processing condition. Additionally, we found evidence that details
that powerfully convey information relevant to survival are supported by context memory
through survival processing. These results shed some light on previous research that saw
mixed results for context memory. This enhanced memory for items and context for materials
processed for survival may have supported the idea that human memory systems were shaped
to remember information relevant to survival better. These results support the hypothesis that
survival processing is a powerful memory phenomenon that benefits from adaptive memory.
However, only specific contextual details may indicate an adaptive memory function, so the
hypothesis is supported.

. References
APA PsycNet. (n.d.). Psycnet.apa.org. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-41733-010

Bell, R., Röer, J. P., & Buchner, A. (2013). Adaptive memory: The survival-processing memory

advantage is not due to negativity or mortality salience. Memory & Cognition, 41(4), 490–

502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0290-5

Burns, D. J., Burns, S. A., & Hwang, A. J. (2011). Adaptive memory: Determining the proximate

mechanisms responsible for the memorial advantages of survival processing. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 206–218.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021325

Butler, A. C., Kang, S. H. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Congruity effects between materials and

processing tasks in the survival processing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1477–1486. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017024

Clark, D. P. A., & Bruno, D. (2016). Fit to last: Exploring the longevity of the survival processing

effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1164–1178.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1076864

Frankenstein, A. N., McCurdy, M. P., Sklenar, A. M., Pandya, R., Szpunar, K. K., & Leshikar, E. D.

(2020). Future thinking about social targets: The influence of prediction outcome on memory.

Cognition, 204, 104390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104390

Hou, C., & Liu, Z. (2019). The Survival Processing Advantage of Face: The Memorization of the

(Un)Trustworthy Face Contributes More to Survival Adaptation. Evolutionary Psychology,

17(2), 147470491983972. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704919839726

Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin,

114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3

Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Cohen, S. M. (2008). The mnemonic advantage of processing

fitness-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1151–1156.

https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.6.1151

Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory:

Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109(2), 306–329.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.2.306

Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (2002). Memory and Temporal Experience: The Effects of

Episodic Memory Loss on an Amnesic Patient's Ability to Remember the Past and Imagine

the Future. Social Cognition, 20(5), 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.20.5.353.21125

Kroneisen, M., Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (2013). The proximate memory mechanism underlying

the survival-processing effect: Richness of encoding or interactive imagery? Memory, 21(4),

494–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.741603

McCurdy, M. P., Viechtbauer, W., Sklenar, A. M., Frankenstein, A. N., & Leshikar, E. D. (2020).

Theories of the generation effect and the impact of generation constraint: A meta-analytic

review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01762-3

Meyers, Z. R., McCurdy, M. P., Leach, R. C., Thomas, A. K., & Leshikar, E. D. (2020). Effects of

Survival Processing on Item and Context Memory: Enhanced Memory for Survival-Relevant

Details. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02244

Misirlisoy, M., Tanyas, H., & Atalay, N. B. (2019). Does survival context enhance memory for the

source? A within-subjects comparison. Memory, 27(6), 780–791.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1566928

Nairne, J. S. (2010, January 1). Chapter 1 - Adaptive Memory: Evolutionary Constraints on

Remembering (B. H. Ross, Ed.). ScienceDirect; Academic Press.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079742110530019
Paivio, A. (2013). Mind and its evolution a dual coding theoretical approach (1st ed.). New York,

N.Y. Psychology Press. (Original work published 2007)

Savine, A. C., Scullin, M. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2011). Survival processing of faces. Memory &

Cognition, 39(8), 1359–1373. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0121-0

Smeets, T., Otgaar, H., Raymaekers, L., Peters, M. J. V., & Merckelbach, H. (2011). Survival

processing in times of stress. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 113–118.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0180-z