The mnemonic advantage of processing fitness-relevant information

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1151-1156

  Kang, Sean H K ^a   McDermott, Kathleen B ^a   Cohen, Sophie M ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FITNESS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; LONG TERM MEMORY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PROCESSING; RECALL; RECOGNITION;

AROUSAL; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; MENTAL RECALL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SET (PSYCHOLOGY); SURVIVAL; VERBAL LEARNING;

EID: 54949122487     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.6.1151     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BULLER, D. J. (2005). Evolutionary psychology: The emperor's new paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 277-283.
2. CLARK, J. M., & PAIVIO, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 371-383.
3. COLTHEART, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505.
4. CRAIK, F. I. M., & LOCKHART, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
5. CRAIK, F. I. M., & TULVING, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
6. DECETY, J., & SOMMERVILLE, J. A. (2003). Shared representations between self and other: A social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 527-533.
7. GLENBERG, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20, 1-55.
8. HUNT, R. R., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 421-445.
9. KLEIN, S. B., COSMIDES, L., TOOBY, J., & CHANCE, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109, 306-329.
10. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
11. NAIRNE, J. S. (2005). The functionalist agenda in memory research. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental psychology and its applications (pp. 115-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. NAIRNE, J. S., THOMPSON, S. R., & PANDEIRADA, J. N. S. (2007). Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 263-273.
13. PACKMAN, J. L., & BATTIG, W. F. (1978). Effects of different kinds of semantic processing on memory for words. Memory & Cognition, 6, 502-508.
14. SCHULMAN, A. I. (1974). Memory for words recently classified. Memory & Cognition, 2, 47-52.
15. SHERRY, D. F., & SCHACTER, D. L. (1987). The evolution of multiple memory systems. Psychological Review, 94, 439-454.
16. SYMONS, C. S., & JOHNSON, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371-394.
17. VAN OVERSCHELDE, J. P., RAWSON, K. A., & DUNLOSKY, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory & Language, 50, 289-335.