In search of the proximal cause of the animacy effect on memory: Attentional resource allocation and semantic representations

The animacy (bias) effect in recognition: testing the influence of intentionality of learning and retrieval quality

The animacy effect, a memory advantage for animate/living over inanimate/non-living items, is well-documented in free recall, but unclear in recognition memory. This might relate to the encoding tasks that have been used and/or to an unequal influence of animacy on the processes underlying recognition (recollection or familiarity). This study reports a recognition memory experiment, coupled with a remember/know procedure. An intentional and two incidental learning conditions (one animacy-related and one animacy-unrelated) were used. No animacy effect was found in discriminability (A') irrespectively of the encoding condition. Still, different mechanisms in incidental and intentional conditions conducted to said result. Overall, animates (vs. inanimates) elicited more hits and also more false alarms. Moreover, participants tended to assign more remember responses to animate (vs. inanimate) hits, denoting higher recollection for the former. These findings are suggestive of an animacy bias in recognition, which was stronger in the animacy-related encoding condition. Ultimate and proximate mechanisms underlying the animacy effect are examined.

The breadth of animacy in memory: New evidence from prospective memory

Studies using retrospective memory tasks have revealed that animates/living beings are better remembered than are inanimates/nonliving things (the animacy effect). However, considering that memory is foremost future oriented, we hypothesized that the animacy effect would also occur in prospective memory (i.e., memory for future intentions). Using standard prospective memory (PM) procedures, we explored this hypothesis by manipulating the animacy status of the PM targets. Study 1a reports data collected from an American sample; these results were then replicated with a Portuguese sample (Study 1b). Study 2 employed a new procedure, and data were collected from a broader English-speaking sample. In these three studies, animate (vs. inanimate) targets consistently led to a better PM performance, revealing, for the first time, that the animacy advantage extends to PM. These results strengthen the adaptive approach to memory and stress the need to consider animacy as an important variable in memory studies.

The animacy effect on free recall is equally large in mixed and pure word lists or pairs

The cognitive mechanisms underlying the animacy effect on free recall have as yet to be identified. According to the attentional-prioritization account, animate words are better recalled because they recruit more attention at encoding than inanimate words. The account implies that the animacy effect should be larger when animate words are presented together with inanimate words in mixed lists or pairs than when animate and inanimate words are presented separately in pure lists or pairs. The present series of experiments served to systematically test whether list composition or pair composition modulate the animacy effect. In Experiment 1, the animacy effect was compared between mixed and pure lists. In Experiments 2 and 3, the words were presented in mixed or pure pairs to manipulate the direct competition for attention between animate and inanimate words at encoding. While encoding was intentional in Experiments 1 and 2, it was incidental in Experiment 3. In each experiment, a significant animacy effect was obtained, but the effect was equally large in mixed and pure lists or pairs of animate and inanimate words despite considerable sensitivity of the statistical test of the critical interaction. These findings provide evidence against the attentional-prioritization account of the animacy effect.

A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity

Introduction

Free recall tends to be better for names of animate concepts such as animals than for names of inanimate objects. In Popp and Serra's 2016 article, the authors replicated this "animacy effect" in free recall but when participants studied words in pairs (animate-animate pairs intermixed with inanimate-inanimate pairs) and were tested with cued recall, performance was better for inanimate-inanimate pairs than for animate-animate pairs ("reverse animacy"). We tested the replicability of this surprising effect and one possible explanation for the effect (semantic similarity).

Methods

Our Experiment 1 was a preregistered direct replication (N = 101) of Popp and Serra's Experiment 1 (mixed-lists condition). In a second preregistered experiment conducted in four different samples (undergraduate N = 153, undergraduate N = 143, online Prolific N = 101, online Prolific/English-as-a-first-language N = 150), we manipulated the within-category semantic similarity of animal and object wordlists.

Results

AIn Experiment 1, just as in Popp and Serra, we observed an animacy effect for free recall and a reverse animacy effect for cued recall. Unlike Popp and Serra, we found that controlling for interference effects rendered the reverse animacy effect non-significant. We took this as evidence that characteristics of the stimulus sets (e.g., category structure, within-category similarity) may play a role in animacy and reverse animacy effects. In Experiment 2, in three out of our four samples, we observed reverse animacy effects when within-category similarity was higher for animals and when within-category similarity was equated for animals and objects.

Discussion

Our results suggest that the reverse animacy effect observed in Popp and Serra's 2016 article is a robust and replicable effect, but that semantic similarity alone cannot explain the effect.

The animacy advantage in memory occurs under self-paced study conditions, but participants' metacognitive beliefs can deter it

Introduction

Animacy distinguishes living (animate) things from non-living (inanimate) things. People tend to devote attention and processing to living over nonliving things, resulting in a privileged status for animate concepts in human cognition. For example, people tend to remember more animate than inanimate items, a phenomenon known as the "animacy effect" or "animacy advantage." To date, however, the exact cause(s) of this effect is unknown.

Methods

We examined the animacy advantage in free-recall performance under computer-paced versus self-paced study conditions and using three different sets of animate and inanimate stimuli (Experiments 1 and 2). We also measured participants' metacognitive beliefs (expectations) about the task before it began (Experiment 2).

Results

We consistently obtained an animacy advantage in free-recall, regardless of whether participants studied the materials under computer-paced or self-paced conditions. Those in self-paced conditions spent less time studying items than did those in computer-paced conditions, but overall levels of recall and the occurrence of the animacy advantage were equivalent by study method. Importantly, participants devoted equivalent study time to animate and inanimate items in self-paced conditions, so the animacy advantage in those conditions cannot be attributed to study time differences. In Experiment 2, participants who believed that inanimate items were more memorable instead showed equivalent recall and study time for animate and inanimate items, suggesting that they engaged in equivalent processing of animate and inanimate items. All three sets of materials reliably produced an animacy advantage, but the effect was consistently larger for one set than the other two, indicating some contribution of item-level properties to the effect.

Discussion

Overall, the results suggest that participants do not purposely allocate greater processing to animate over inanimate items, even when study is self-paced. Rather, animate items seem to naturally trigger greater richness of encoding than do inanimate items and are then better remembered, although under some conditions participants might engage in deeper processing of inanimate items which can reduce or eliminate the animacy advantage. We suggest that researchers might conceptualize mechanisms for the effect as either centering on intrinsic, item-level properties of the items or centering on extrinsic, processing-based differences between animate and inanimate items.

Do young children, like young adults, remember animates better than inanimates?

It has repeatedly been shown in adults that animates are remembered better than inanimates. According to the adaptive view of human memory this is due to the fact that animates are generally more important for survival than inanimates. Animacy enhances not only the quantity but also the quality of remembering. The effect is primarily driven by recollection. Virtually all studies have been conducted in adults, and we believe that the investigation of animacy effects in children is also highly relevant. The present study therefore tested the animacy effect on recollection in young (6-7 years, M = 6.6 years) and older children (10-12 years, M = 10.83 years) using the Remember/Know paradigm. As found in adults, an animacy effect on memory was found, but only in older children, and specifically in the "remember" responses, suggesting, once again, its episodic nature.

Animacy enhances recollection but not familiarity: Convergent evidence from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure

Words representing living beings are better remembered than words representing nonliving objects, a robust finding called the animacy effect. Considering the postulated evolutionary-adaptive significance of this effect, the animate words' memory advantage should not only affect the quantity but also the quality of remembering. To test this assumption, we compared the quality of recognition memory between animate and inanimate words. The remember-know-guess paradigm (Experiment 1) and the process-dissociation procedure (Experiment 2) were used to assess both subjective and objective aspects of remembering. Based on proximate accounts of the animacy effect that focus on elaborative encoding and attention, animacy is expected to selectively enhance detailed recollection but not the acontextual feeling of familiarity. Multinomial processing-tree models were applied to disentangle recollection, familiarity, and different types of guessing processes. Results obtained from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure convergently show that animacy selectively enhances recollection but does not affect familiarity. In both experiments, guessing processes were unaffected by the words' animacy status. Animacy thus not only enhances the quantity but also affects the quality of remembering: The effect is primarily driven by recollection. The results support the richness-of-encoding account and the attentional account of the animacy effect on memory.

Within-pair factors might explain the inconsistent effects of animacy on paired-associates recall

The tendency for people to have better memory for animate (living) concepts than inanimate (nonliving) concepts in memory tasks involving free recall and recognition suggests that animacy status can be an important predictor of memory. To date, however, the effect of animacy on paired-associates recall has been mixed: Some studies have found an animacy advantage, some have found an animacy disadvantage, and some have found no difference by animacy. We tested the hypothesis that the within-pair relationship of the two words in a pair matters more for cued recall than animacy itself. In two experiments, college students studied animate and inanimate English word pairs for a cued-recall test. We varied whether the pairs involved two typical exemplars from the same category (e.g., SALMON-TROUT; FORK-SPOON), one typical and one atypical exemplar from the same category (e.g., DOCTOR-SCIENTIST; HOUSE-IGLOO), or two unrelated words from different categories (e.g., SERGEANT-COBRA; MAGAZINE-PLIERS). Respectively, these pair types produced an animacy disadvantage, an animacy advantage, and no difference by animacy in both experiments. We then examined several measures of within-pair similarity for the items. All were positively associated with paired-associates recall, but animacy had no effect on cued recall above and beyond the relationship of these measures to recall. These results suggest that the within-pair relationship matters more for cued recall than does animacy. Uneven variation in within-pair relationships for animate versus inanimate pairs-rather than animacy itself-might therefore produce the apparently inconsistent effects of animacy on paired-associates recall.

Thinking of death and remembering living things: mortality salience and the animacy effect

The animacy effect, the finding that animate items are better remembered than inanimate items, provides evidence that human memory prioritizes information that is related to survival. Various proximate mechanisms for this memory effect have been proposed, including mortality salience, that humans are more likely to remember information related to death, and animate items (e.g., shark, tiger) are more likely to elicit thoughts of death than inanimate items (e.g., volleyball, towel). Mortality salience was manipulated in Experiment 1. Animate items were recalled more than inanimate items and threatening items were recalled more than nonthreatening items, but there was no significant effect of mortality salience. For Experiment 2, norming data were collected rating the word stimuli from the previous experiment on the characteristics of arousal, valence, likelihood to capture attention, and likelihood to elicit thoughts of death. These ratings along with threat ratings and animacy status of the items were included in a regression analysis with the frequency of recall of the items in Experiment 1. In addition to animacy, likelihood to capture attention and likelihood to elicit thoughts of death were significant predictors of recall, suggesting that these characteristics could be at least partly responsible for the animacy effect.

Analyzing the structure of animacy: Exploring relationships among six new animacy and 15 existing normative dimensions for 1,200 concrete nouns

Animacy is an important word variable (especially for episodic memory), yet no norms exist in the literature. We present a complete, usable normative data set of 1,200 relatively concrete nouns normed on 15 existing dimensions (concreteness, familiarity, imagery, availability, valence, arousal, dominance, age of acquisition, length, orthographic neighborhood, phonographic neighborhood, number of syllables, and subtitle frequency/contextual diversity) and six new animacy dimensions (a general living/non-living scale, ability to think, ability to reproduce, similarity to a person, goal-directedness, and movement likelihood). Principal component analysis of these 21 dimensions revealed that animacy scales were conceptually different from extant word variables. Further, factor analysis of the six new scales revealed these animacy norms may be separable into two dimensions: a "Mental" component related to animates' ability to think and have goals, and a "Physical" component related to animates' general resemblance to living things. These data provide useful theoretical insight into the structure of the animacy dimension, an important factor in many cognitive processes. The norms are accessible at https://osf.io/4t3cu .

Adaptive Education: Learning and Remembering with a Stone-Age Brain

Educators generally accept that basic learning and memory processes are a product of evolution, guided by natural selection. Less well accepted is the idea that ancestral selection pressures continue to shape modern memory functioning. In this article, I review evidence suggesting that attention to nature's criterion-the enhancement of fitness-is needed to explain fully how and why people remember. Thinking functionally about memory, and adopting an evolutionary perspective in the laboratory, has led to recent discoveries with clear implications for learning in the classroom. For example, our memory systems appear to be tuned to animacy (the distinction between living and nonliving things) which, in turn, can play a role in enhancing foreign language acquisition. Effective learning management systems need to align with students' prior knowledge, skill, and interest levels, but also with the inherent content biases or "tunings" that are representative of all people.