Download Chong, Isis-Thesis 8

Running head: SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
1
The Psychological Hunger Games: Using Survival to Study Memory
Isis Chong
California State University, Long Beach
Author Note
Isis Chong, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Isis Chong, Department of
Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840
E-mail: [email protected]
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
2
Abstract
Building upon levels-of-processing theory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), recent research has found
that memory best benefits from survival-related material (Nairne, Thompson & Pandeirada,
2007). Research manipulating processing in regards to the self and to another has failed to find a
significant effect of perspective where third-person perspectives have been confounded with
first-person perspectives (Kang, McDermott & Cohen, 2008; Weinstein, Bugg & Roediger,
2008). This study argues that by the using a novel scenario based on The Hunger Games series,
the two types of processing may be teased apart to yield a significant difference in recall. This
study found that processing survival information in regards to the self produces greater recall
than processing information in regards to another. These findings suggest that survival
processing works as a function of distinctiveness.
Keywords: survival processing, self referencing
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
3
Survival Processing and The Hunger Games
Levels of processing theory was originally proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972) to
address how encoding affects memory. Craik and Lockhart (1972) postulated that durability of
memory is determined by the type of encoding that occurs for any given piece of information.
Items that are processed at deeper (more semantic) levels are elaborated upon to a greater degree
and require greater cognitive analysis than items that are not processed as deeply. Conversely,
items that are processed at shallow levels are not elaborated upon as much or are processed
incompletely and this, in the end, makes it less likely that they will be remembered. To illustrate
the difference between deep and shallow levels, one must imagine, for example, having to
encode a word based on its phonemic properties (a shallow level) versus imagining and thinking
about the purpose of this same item (a deeper level). When individuals process information
based on the phonetic instruction, later recall suffers in comparison to the latter task.
Since its introduction, Craik and Lockheart’s (1972) theory has garnered a significant
amount of support. To date, several types of deep processing have been studied. Research has
demonstrated that processing words in regards to the self or imageability have ultimately
produced the highest level of recall when paired with other shallow encoding tasks such as
processing words based on its physical appearance, i.e., counting letters in a word (Challis,
Velichkovsky, & Craik, 1996). In addition to these levels, when participants were asked to
complete tasks where they actively had to think about the pleasantness of words, they would
benefit from having processed this information at a deep level.
Most recently, finds of Nairne and his colleagues (2007) have collected data that suggest
that the deepest level of processing to date may be survival processing. When participants are
asked to imagine themselves in a survival-related scenario, stimuli are remembered at a much
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
4
higher rate than when placed in the other classic, deep conditions. For example, when given tasks
such as rating words based on pleasantness or rating them in regards to the self, survival
processing has resulted in the highest level of retention. Nairne and his colleagues (2007) have
argued that this advantage is a result of evolution and was developed because enhanced
memories allow for us to better adapt to our environment.
In the original study by Nairne et al. (2007), participants were asked to imagine
themselves in a distant grassland area fending for their survival. They would need to plan for a
prolonged stay in this foreign location. Having this scenario in mind, participants were then
instructed to rate a list of words based on their relevance to this scenario. In other words,
participants were to rate words based on their relevance to their own survival. Other scenarios
included rating words based on pleasantness and rating words in regards to a moving scenario
where participants had to imagine moving to a new domicile. After rating the list, they were
given a filler task to take their minds off the task they just completed. Participants were then
given a surprise recall task. The survival scenario was shown to be more advantageous for
overall recall than the other conditions. This original study has set the paradigm for many other
studies that have used these designs to achieve similar results (Butler, Kang, & Roediger, 2009;
Kang, McDermott, & Cohen, 2008; Nairne, Pandeirada, & Thompson, 2008; Nairne, Thompson,
& Pandeirada, 2007; Weinstein, Bugg, & Roediger, 2008).
Building upon their previous work, Nairne et al. (2008) compared other tried and true
deep levels to survival processing. In this study, conditions included rating words based on
pleasantness, imagery, and self-reference. Other conditions included rating words for
pleasantness where participants had to “unscramble” the first two letters of a word, an intentional
learning condition, and finally, the aforementioned grasslands survival condition. Memory with
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
survival processing surpassed all conditions, even those requiring a great amount of semantic
processing. The second experiment in the study found that recall rates were also not due to the
general theme of the scenario. In other words, it isn’t the mere idea of being in an exotic land
that creates the advantage. When participants encoded words using a scenario where they
imagined being on vacation in an unfamiliar land, recall was poorer than when they had to think
about their survival. If survival processing was only due to being placed in a foreign land, then
results should have ultimately yielded no significant difference. Results, however, demonstrated
that thinking about one’s own survival is a very powerful way of encoding information.
Other studies have also tested the effects of survival in other types of locations. Going
along with evolutionary theory, one could easily predict that survival-related material would
yield much greater memory in a grassland environment than in an urban environment. Collegeaged participants, however, should be more familiar with a city scenario than a grasslands
environment. To address this, Weinstein et al. (2008) asked participants to place themselves in
not only the original grasslands scenario but also, in moving and city scenarios. In the city
scenario, participants were to protect themselves from attackers while living in a city. The
moving scenario simply asked participants to rate words based on what would be necessary to
successfully purchase and transport items to a new home. Despite more familiarity with the city
and moving scenarios, participants had significantly improved recall when placed in the
grasslands survival scenario. These results indicate that having to think of one’s own survival
will result in deeper levels of encoding and higher recall.
Another aspect of previous memory research that is particularly relevant to the study at
hand involves the investigation of perspective on the survival processing effect. Weinstein et al.
(2008) investigated the aforementioned scenarios (moving, grasslands, and city) and added the
5
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
6
dimension of perspective. For these three scenarios, participants were asked to rate items based
on not only their own survival, but also that of a friend. Upon comparing the overall recall of for
these rating conditions, no significant effect of perspective was found. The present study,
however, argues that contrary to these findings, a difference in memory should exist between
individuals who rate items in the first-person scenario and those in the third-person scenario. The
researchers postulated that their nonsignificant finding was a result of a weak manipulation. To
explicate, asking participants to think about a friend’s survival was not an engaging enough
scenario. The word “friend” may have ultimately proven to be a confound because this word
alone may not have been of the necessary strength to prompt this type of third-person processing.
Building upon past research, this study sought to test scenarios different to the original
grasslands survival scenarios that have been previously used. Ideally, scenarios should be
somewhat familiar to the participant so that he or she can fully immerse themselves in the
scenario. For this reason, this study sought to use the popular book series, The Hunger Games, as
a basis for its survival scenarios. The Hunger Games is a three-book, teen fiction series that, at
the time of data collection for the current study, had just been turned into a movie series. This
fictional series takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where 24 young people annually fight for
their lives while fending off predators and enduring the forces of nature. Only one person is
allowed to be the victor, and this person wins by being the last person to survive. Although
slightly gruesome, this individual is allowed to have a teammate who watches the game through
video cameras and can, to some extent, help and guide the individual in the arena.
Of particular interest in the present research is the role of point of view (first-person
versus third-person) in determining the survival processing effect. We argue that scenarios that
resemble The Hunger Games will be more engaging than past research that has simply asked
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
7
participants to imagine a “friend” in the survival scenario (Weinstein et al., 2008). It is argued
that scenarios that employ perspectives such as those of a “friend” or “stranger” (Weinstein et
al., 2008) are simply not engaging enough. Upon asking individuals about past scenarios in
preliminary testing, it was found that many participants reported difficulty in fully committing to
the perspective they had been assigned. If one has to imagine him or herself as the mentor of an
individual whose safety is at stake, this may promote imaging the scenario from a third-person
perspective, making it a “true” third-person perspective. In other words, this scenario may prove
to be stronger manipulation than past scenarios have. This study argues that with a stronger
scenario, there should be a significant difference between first- and third-person processing.
To accomplish the above goals, two incidental learning conditions were used to test
retention rates between individuals who rated items in a first-person and third-person scenario.
This study postulated that first-person processing should ultimately yield higher recall than thirdperson processing.
Method
Participants and Apparatus
A total of 96 participants from California State University, Long Beach participated in
exchange for partial course credit in an upper-division psychology course. Participants were
tested in groups of one to five with the experiment lasting approximately 20 minutes. Stimuli
were projected onto a white wall, and participants were asked to record their responses onto
blank forms that were handed out on clipboards at the beginning of the experiment. Instructions
were read aloud to participants.
Materials and Design
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
8
To match up as best as possible with their study, stimuli were selected from the list of
words used by Nairne et al. (2007). A total of 33 words were presented to participants, three
being practice words. These words can be found in Appendix A. A simple between-subjects
design was used whereby all participants received the same word list, order of words, and filler
task. There were 48 randomly assigned participants in both the first-person condition and in the
third-person condition. There were four major segments for this experiment, the first of which
was a rating task that manipulated the type of encoding performed, explained below. Participants
were either prompted with the first-person scenario or a third-person scenario for this task. The
instructions for the first-person and third-person scenarios that were used are as follows:
First-person scenario:
In this task we would you to imagine that you are stranded in the grasslands of a
foreign land, without any basic survival materials. You are competing in a survival
“game” that you must win. Over the next few months, you’ll need to find steady
supplies of food and water and protect yourself from predators and other humans who
are competing with you for the same things. We are going to show you a list of words,
and we would like you to rate how relevant each of these words would be in for you in
this survival situation. Some of the words may be relevant and others may not - it’s up
to you decide.
Third-person scenario:
In this task we would like you to imagine that you are the mentor for a teammate
stranded in the grasslands of a foreign land, without any basic survival materials. Your
teammate is competing in a survival “game” that you both must win. You watch the
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
9
whole competition on hidden cameras and can offer advice to your teammate in the
arena. Over the next few months, you need to help your teammate find steady supplies
of food and water and protect themselves from predators and other humans who are
competing with you for the same things. We are going to show you a list of words, and
we would like you to rate how relevant each of these words would be for your
teammate in this survival situation. Some of the words may be relevant and others may
not - it’s up to you to decide.
After completing a rating task, participants completed a second task, a filler task. The
filler task that was administered asked participant’s to write down as many of the fifty United
States as they could remember. The performance on this filler task was not scored.
Following the filler task, participants completed the third task of the experiment, which
was a free recall task. All aspects of this experiment were held constant across participants
except for the encoding task (first-person versus third-person) that was assigned.
Finally, upon the completion of the free recall task, participants completed the fourth and
final task where they were instructed to complete a survey that served as a manipulation check.
This manipulation check surveyed participants on their familiarity with The Hunger Games
series. This last task consisted of two parts. The first part included both closed-ended and openended questions asking whether participants were reminded of a particular movie or book. The
second part of the manipulations included closed-ended questions asking whether participants
were specifically familiar with The Hunger Games series specifically. The surveys were handed
out in this order to prevent possibly biasing the answers of the participants.
Procedure
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
10
Upon arriving inside the laboratory, participants were read aloud instructions for their
respective scenarios (first-person or third-person).
After receiving one of the two scenarios, participants were asked to rate words based on
their relevancy to the survival scenario on a 5-point Likert scale with “1” being completely
irrelevant and “5” being completely relevant. Promptly following these instructions, stimuli were
projected onto a white wall. Three practice words were presented for 5 seconds each, after which
participants were asked to express any problems with understanding the task. Upon expressing
their grasp of the task at hand, the test stimuli were presented with the same time interval as the
practice words. Following this rating task, participants were asked to complete a 2-minute filler
task that asked them to write down as many of the fifty states of the United States of America as
they could recall. After this task, participants completed a recall task during which they were
asked to recall as many of the thirty words from survival word rating task. The results on this last
task, the free recall task, was used to measure the memory of the participants. Finally, the
participants were asked to complete the two-part manipulation check.
Results
The significance level for the statistical comparison of overall recall between conditions
was set at p < .05. An independent samples t-test was performed comparing individuals who
were prompted with the first-person scenario (M = 48.05%, SD = 11.48%) and individuals who
were prompted with the third person scenario (M = 42.92%, SD = 12.15%), a significant mean
difference was found, t (96) = 1.302, p < .05. The overall effect size was small, d = 0.29.
The results from this study did not vary greatly from past results and were in conjunction
with past recall rates. The results from the manipulation task that was administered to
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
11
participants cannot be reported as a number of participants were not able to fully complete the
task.
Discussion
The main goal of this study was to document the differences that exist between first- and
third-person processing in survival scenarios. Based on past research on self-referencing
(Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977; Kuiper, & Rogers, 1979; Nairne, et al., 2007; Weinstein et al.,
2008), it was expected that the first-person processing condition would yield higher recall than
the third-person processing condition. Past research (Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977; Kuiper, &
Rogers, 1979; Nairne et al., 2007; Weinstein et al., 2008) had not manipulated scenarios for
familiarity or for urgency and it was believed that this was why there had not been any clear or
distinct results. Past research has simply referred to the other person as a “friend” (Weinstein et
al., 2008) and in the experimenters’ opinion, failed to accurately match conditions. It was
predicted that this study would produce greater differences among conditions.
In agreement with what was hypothesized by the researchers, and in concordance with
classic memory research, this study was able to tease apart first- and third-person processing
with the use of a novel survival scenario. Our results bring forth the question of the differences
between our manipulation and others before it.
To explicate further, by making use of a novel scenario, we were able to tease apart firstand third- person processing while other scenarios could not. This suggests that because our
scenario was much more vivid and engaging, that memory may ultimately work as a function of
distinctiveness. If survival processing is truly adaptive and at the foundation of what we call
memory, first-person scenarios should always yield better recall than third-person scenarios. Past
research, however, has not found this to be the case. This history, together with our results, point
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
12
us toward the direction of questioning whether survival processing is truly the deepest level of
processing.
Recent research has come to suggest that the survival processing effect might not be due
to evolutionary processes like originally thought (Howe & Otgaar, 2013). In conjunction with
our findings and their suggestion that survival processing is not, in fact an adaptation that we
have developed over the years, it is proposed that our results may be a matter of distinctiveness
at work. Future research should be aimed at creating novel and distinct scenarios without a
survival component. These non-survival scenarios should then be compared to equally distinct
and rich survival scenarios. Creating the aforementioned conditions may allow us to uncover
whether our memory works as a result of an evolutionary adaptation, or instead, distinctiveness.
At this present moment, we stand at the helm of uncovering what belies the survival
processing effect. Although our results demonstrated that it is indeed possible to draw a line
between first-person and third-person processing, they have also brought forth the question of
whether survival processing is, in fact, its own phenomenon and not simply a result of the
distinctiveness survival scenarios carry. With the suggestions for future research mentioned
prior, we may be able to delve further into this matter and truly uncover how it is that our
memory works.
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
13
References
Butler, A. C., Kang, S. K., & Roediger, H. (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.
doi:10.1037/a0017024
Challis, B. H., Velichovsky, B. M., & Craik, F. M. (1996). Levels-of-processing effects on a
variety of memory tasks: New findings and theoretical implications. Consciousness and
Cognition: An International Journal, 5(1-2), 142-164. doi:10.1006/ccog.1996.0009
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal Of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Howe, M. L. & Otgaar, H. (2013). Proximate mechanisms and the development of adaptive
memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 16-22.
doi:10.1177/0963721412469397
Kang, S. K., McDermott, K. B., & Cohen, S. M. (2008). The mnemonic advantage of processing
fitness-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1151-1156.
doi:10.3758/MC.36.6.1151
Kuiper, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). Encoding of personal information: Self–other
differences. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(4), 499-514.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.4.499
Nairne, J. S., Thompson, S. R., & Pandeirada, J. S. (2007). Adaptive memory: Survival
processing enhances retention. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 33(2), 263-273. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.263
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
14
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. S. (2008). Adaptive memory: Remembering with a stone-age
brain. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 17(4), 239-243. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2008.00582.x
Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. S., & Thompson, S. R. (2008). Adaptive memory: The comparative
value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19(2), 176-180. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2008.02064.x
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of
personal information. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 35(9), 677-688.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677
Weinstein, Y., Bugg, J. M., & Roediger, H. (2008). Can the survival recall advantage be
explained by basic memory process? Memory & Cognition, 36(5), 913-919.
doi:10.3758/MC.36.5.913
SURVIVAL PROCESSING AND THE HUNGER GAMES
Appendix A
Critical Stimuli
apartment
aunt
bear
book
broccoli
car
carbon
catfish
cathedral
chair
diesel
door
eagle
emerald
finger
flute
juice
mountain
orange
pan
pepper
screwdriver
shoes
silk
silver
snow
soccer
sock
sword
teacher
truck
whiskey
15