在回溯记忆中已证实生存优势效应具有稳定性,而前瞻记忆的生存优势效应及其稳定性如何尚不明确。实验1操纵编码条件（生存加工、愉悦度评价）、相关程度（高、中、低）和认知负荷（高、低）,探究前瞻记忆在不同认知负荷下是否均存在此效应。结果显示,高低认知负荷下,生存加工的前瞻记忆正确率均更高;低负荷的前瞻记忆比高负荷表现更好;高生存相关的前瞻记忆正确率显著高于中、低生存相关。实验2深入探究此效应如何影响前瞻成分与回溯成分,结果显示前者与前瞻记忆整体表现一致,且与实验1结果一致,后者只有在中生存相关时出现生存优势效应。结果表明：前瞻记忆及其成分都具有生存优势效应,一致性效应与生存加工存在一定程度的独立性。
Abstract
The survival advantage effect refers to an evolved mechanism in the human memory system that helps people better recall information related to survival or information processed in survival contexts. It has been extensively studied in the retrospective memory domain, and the results indicate that its effects are consistent. However, the role of survival processing in prospective memory (the memory designated for future intentions) is not sufficiently elucidated. Prospective memory is the ability to successfully carry out an intention, referring to the memory of a planned event in a specific situation or at a specific time in the future, and includes prospective and retrospective components. The prospective component involves the observation and recognition of goal cues, and the retrospective component involves the extraction of future intentions. Both of these components are necessary for prospective memory tasks in daily life. Therefore, this study used two experiments to examine whether survival advantages affect prospective memory and whether these effects are localized to the prospective or retrospective components.
Experiment 1 manipulated the correlation between target cues and survival situations under different encoding conditions and cognitive loads, with the aim of investigating whether prospective memory has survival advantage effects under different cognitive loads. In Experiment 1, we used a 2 (cognitive load: high, low) × 2 (encoding conditions: survival processing, hedonic evaluation) × 3 (relevance levels: high survival relevance, medium survival relevance, low survival relevance) mixed design. The encoding condition was designated as a between-subjects variable. The remaining two variables were intra-subject variables. The experiment adopted the classic dual-task paradigm of prospective memory, including ongoing tasks and prospective memory tasks. The ongoing tasks were divided into 1-back and 2-back tasks, corresponding to low and high cognitive load. The results of Experiment 1 showed that under low cognitive load conditions, the performance of the survival processing group was better than that of the hedonic evaluation group. Only the prospective memory accuracy of high survival relevance was significantly higher than that of medium and low survival relevance. Therefore, prospective memory exhibits the survival advantage effect.
In Experiment 2, which was based on Experiment 1, we used the experimental separation method to differentiate the two components of prospective memory to gain a deeper understanding of how the survival advantage effect specifically affects prospective memory components. In Experiment 2, we adopted a 2 (cognitive load: high, low) × 2 (encoding conditions: survival processing, hedonic evaluation) × 3 (relevance levels: high survival relevance, medium survival relevance, low survival relevance) mixed design. The encoding condition was designated as the between-subjects variable. The remaining two variables were within-subject variables. As with Experiment 1, the results of Experiment 2 reveal that under low cognitive load conditions, the accuracy of prospective memory for survival processing is higher. Only high survival-related prospective memory has a significantly higher accuracy than medium and low survival-related prospective memory. The results of Experiment 2 further confirmed the findings of Experiment 1-prospective memory exhibited a significant survival advantage effect. In addition, the prospective component is consistent with the overall performance of prospective memory. The retrospective component only shows survival advantage effects when it is related to moderate survival. The results indicate that both prospective memory and its components have a survival advantage effect.
The study innovatively combines the classical survival processing paradigm with the dual-task paradigm of prospective memory to uncover how the human brain processes, stores, and retrieves survival-related information and efficiently uses memory across multiple tasks in complex environments. The findings provide new insights into how to use prospective memory more effectively in learning, work, and life. Furthermore, the results showed that prospective memory and its components exhibited a survival advantage effect. The consistency effect cannot fully explain the survival advantage effect.
关键词
前瞻记忆 /
记忆生存优势效应 /
前瞻成分 /
回溯成分 /
认知负荷
Key words
prospective memory /
survival advantages effect /
prospective component /
retrospective component /
cognitive load
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 陈石, 梁正, 李香兰, 陈嫣然, 赵庆柏, 于全磊, 李松青,周治金,刘丽中. (2021). 新颖语义联结在顿悟促进记忆效果中的作用. 心理学报, 53(8), 837-846.
[2] 陈幼贞, 辛聪, 胡锦慧. (2021).认知负荷与编码方式对前瞻记忆及其成分的影响.心理科学, 44(3), 545-551.
[3] 陈幼贞, 张曼曼, 林秋蓉. (2022). 认知负荷与编码方式影响小学数学学业不良生的前瞻记忆及其成分. 心理学报, 54(12), 1491-1502.
[4] 毛伟宾, 于睿, 李春. (2013). 一致性、相关性对记忆生存优势效应的影响. 心理学报, 45(3), 253-262.
[5] 宋晓蕾, 王丹, 张欣欣, 贾筱倩. (2020). 基于客体的一致性效应的产生机制. 心理学报, 52(6), 669-681.
[6] 周宗泽, 郭永玉, 杨沈龙, 陈真珍. (2014). 适应性记忆: 方位记忆的生存优势. 心理科学, 37(2), 303-310.
[7] Alban, M. W., & Annibal, S. C. (2022). Varying retrieval conditions to study survival processing. Memory, 30(9), 1087-1102.
[8] Alonso M. A., Díez E., & Fernandez A. (2021). A set of 750 words in Spanish characterized in two survival-related dimensions: Avoiding death and locating nourishment. Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 153-166.
[9] Bonin P., Thiebaut G., & Méot A. (2024). Ratings of survival-related dimensions for a set of 732 words, their relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and memory performance. Current Psychology, 43(9), 8200-8218.
[10] 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.
[11] Cook A. M., Klin C. M., & Westerman D. L. (2023). Surviving with story characters: What do we remember? Memory and Cognition, 51(6), 1303-1316.
[12] Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294.
[13] Dewhurst S. A., Anderson R. J., O'Connor R. J., & Dean G. M. (2023). The effect of survival processing on memory for pictures depends on how memory is tested. Memory, 31(4), 502-508.
[14] Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 717-726.
[15] Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 286-290.
[16] Forester G., Kroneisen M., Erdfelder E., & Kamp S. M. (2020). Survival processing modulates the neurocognitive mechanisms of episodic encoding. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20(4), 717-729.
[17] Gan J. Q., Guo Y. F., & Wang E. G. (2024). The processing mechanism of mixed prospective memory: Changes in internal and external attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(2), 408-417.
[18] Hou, C. N., & Liu, Z. J. (2019). The survival processing advantage of face: The memorization of the (un)trustworthy face contributes more to survival adaptation. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), Article 1474704919839726.
[19] Hu J. H., Xin C., Zhang M. M., & Chen Y. Z. (2024). The effect of cognitive load and time stress on prospective memory and its components. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1670-1684.
[20] Kazanas S. A., Altarriba J., & O' Brien, E. G. (2020). Paired-associate learning, animacy, and imageability effects in the survival advantage. Memory and Cognition, 48(2), 244-255.
[21] Kazanas S. A., Wilck A. M., & Altarriba J. (2022). Adaptive memory: Greater memory advantages in bilinguals' first language. International Journal of Bilingualism, 26(1), 49-64.
[22] Kroneisen M., Erdfelder E., Groß R. M., & Janczyk M. (2024). Survival processing occupies the central bottleneck of cognitive processing: A psychological refractory period analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 31(1), 274-282.
[23] Kroneisen M., Kriechbaumer M., Kamp S. M., & Erdfelder E. (2022). Realistic context doesn' t amplify the survival processing effect: Lessons learned from Covid-19 scenarios. Acta Psychologica, 222, Article 103459.
[24] Kroneisen M., Rummel J., & Erdfelder E. (2016). What kind of processing is survival processing? Memory and Cognition, 44(8), 1228-1243.
[25] Leding, J. K. (2020). Animacy and threat in recognition memory. Memory and Cognition, 48(5), 788-799.
[26] Meier, B., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2015). Loads and loads and loads: The influence of prospective load, retrospective load, and ongoing task load in prospective memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 322.
[27] Moura J. M. B., da Silva R. H., Júnior W. S. F., da Silva T. C., & Albuquerque U. P. (2021). Memory for medicinal plants remains in ancient and modern environments suggesting an evolved adaptedness. PLoS ONE, 16(10), Article e0258986.
[28] Nairne, J. S. (2022). Adaptive education: Learning and remembering with a stone-age brain. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2275-2296.
[29] Nairne J. S., Coverdale M. E., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2019). Adaptive memory: The mnemonic power of survival based generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(11), 1970-1982.
[30] 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(2), 263-273.
[31] Otgaar, H., & Smeets, T. (2010). Adaptive memory: Survival processing increases both true and false memory in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1010-1016.
[32] Raymaekers L. H. C., Otgaar H., & Smeets T. (2014). The longevity of adaptive memory: Evidence for mnemonic advantages of survival processing 24 and 48 hours later. Memory, 22(1), 19-25.
[33] Röer J. P., Bell R., & Buchner A. (2013). Is the survival-processing memory advantage due to richness of encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1294-1302.
[34] Schaper M. L., Mieth L., & Bell R. (2019). Adaptive memory: Source memory is positively associated with adaptive social decision making. Cognition, 186, 7-14.
[35] Seitz B. M., Polack C. W., & Miller R. R. (2020). Adaptive memory: Generality of the parent processing effect and effects of biological relatedness on recall. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6(3), 246-260.
[36] Stillman C. M., Coane J. H., & Profaci C. P., Howard Jr J. H., & Howard D. V. (2014). The effects of healthy aging on the mnemonic benefit of survival processing. Memory and Cognition, 42(2), 175-185.
[37] Wang Y. M., Zhang L. R., Kan H., & Gao J. D. (2023). Survival processing advantage demonstrated with virtual reality-based survival environment: A promising tool for survival processing research. Memory and Cognition, 51(1), 129-142.
[38] Yang L. X., Truong L., & Li L. Q. (2021). Survival processing effect in memory under semantic divided attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(3), 299-306.
基金
*本研究得到福建省社会科学基金重点项目：基于两种成分的老年人前瞻记忆评估与个性化综合干预（FJ2024A032）的资助
PDF(1294 KB)
