Surviving in a second language: survival processing effect in memory of bilinguals

ABSTRACT

Human memory likely evolved to serve adaptive functions, that is, to help maximise our chances of survival and reproduction. One demonstration of such adaptiveness is the increased retention of information processed in survival contexts, the so-called Survival Processing Effect (SPE). This study examined this effect in a native (L1) and in a second language (L2). This comparison is relevant to explore if emotionality is involved in the SPE, as emotional activation seems to be larger in L1 than in L2. Following the original survival processing procedure, participants rated the relevance of information to the survival and moving scenarios and performed a recognition (Experiment 1) or a free recall (Experiment 2) task in L1 or L2. In both experiments, the SPE was replicated in L1 but not in L2. The absence of the effect when emotional activation is less likely suggests that emotionality might play a role in the survival processing effect; nevertheless, additional studies are needed to further investigate this hypothesis.

KEYWORDS:

• Survival processing effect
• free recall
• recognition
• emotion
• first and second language

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 We conducted this same ANOVA also including block order as a between-subjects variable. The results revealed that the main effect of block order was not significant, F(1, 120) = 0.546, p = .461. The interactions between language and block order, scenario and block order, and scenario, language and block order were also not significant, F(1, 120) = 1.168, p = .282, F(1, 120) = .205, p = .652, and F(1, 120) = .832, p = .364, respectively. For this reason, block order was not included in the main analysis.

2 An interaction contrast model comparing the observed group means of the four conditions as a one-way ANOVA (SL1, ML1, SL2, ML2) against the predicted pattern of means revealed a significant interaction effect, F = 7.716, p = .006 (the R script used to conduct this analysis can be found at the OSF link). Moreover, equivalence tests using as bounds Cohen's medium effect size (dz = .50) and the effect size obtained for the SPE in L1 (dz = .436) indicated that the observed effect size in L2 (dz = .205) was significantly within the equivalent bounds, t(61) = −2.33, p = .012, and t(61) = −1.82, p = .037, respectively, suggesting that the absence of an SPE in the L2 is reliable.

3 We conducted this same ANOVA also including block order as a between-subjects variable. The results revealed that the main effect of block order was not significant, F(1, 222) = 0.576, p = .449. The interactions between language and block order, scenario and block order, and scenario, language and block order were also not significant, F(1, 222) = .009, p = .925, F(1, 222) = 1.914, and p = .147, F(1, 222) = .469, p = .494, respectively. Therefore, block order was not included in the main analysis.

4 The interaction contrast model was significant, F = 4.342, p = .038 (the R script used to conduct this analysis can be found at the OSF link provided earlier). The equivalence tests using as bounds the Cohen's medium effect size (dz = .50) and the effect size obtained for the SPE in L1 (dz = .235) indicated that the observed effect size in L2 (dz = .042) was significantly within the equivalent bounds, t(112) = −4.87, p < .001, t(112) = −2.05, p = .021, respectively, suggesting that the absence of an SPE in L2 is reliable.

5 The results of two independent experiments, previously conducted with a different sampling procedure, largely replicated the ones here presented (see SM-2).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, with grants awarded to MVG and MS [grant number PTDC/MHC-PCN/5217/2014] and to JNSP [grant number CEECIND/01914/2017].