↓ Skip to main content

What kind of processing is survival processing?

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
What kind of processing is survival processing?
Published in
Memory & Cognition, August 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0634-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meike Kroneisen, Jan Rummel, Edgar Erdfelder

Abstract

Words judged for their relevance in a survival context are remembered better than words processed in non-survival contexts. This phenomenon is known as the survival processing effect. Recently, inconsistent results were reported on whether the size of the survival processing effect is affected by cognitive load. Whereas Kroneisen, Rummel, and Erdfelder (Memory 22: 92-102, 2014) observed that the survival processing effect vanishes under dual-task conditions, Stillman, Coane, Profaci, Howard, and Howard (Memory & Cognition 42: 175-185, 2014, Experiment 1) found that the size of survival processing effect is essentially unaffected by a cognitively demanding secondary task. In three experiments, we investigated the differences between these studies to achieve a better understanding of dual-task effects on the survival-processing advantage. In the first experiment, we replicated Stillman et al.'s results using their dual-task conditions combined with a sample more than twice as large as theirs. In the second experiment, we compared dual-task conditions that differed regarding how strongly the secondary task taxed (a) working memory load (maintenance of one vs. several items) and (b) processing demands (switching vs. time-sharing between tasks). A third experiment focussed on low (i.e., single-item) load under time-sharing processing conditions. Results consistently showed that the survival processing effect persisted under low load but vanished when the number of items held in working memory increased beyond one, irrespective of processing demands. Implications of these findings for explanations of the survival-processing advantage are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#956
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,416
of 368,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.