1040 It may well be the case that the unique effect of survival processing is related to the survival instruction inducing both item-specific and relational processing. It is well demonstrated that both types of processing lead to superior memory retention (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993). Indeed, a recent study by Burns, Burns, and Hwang (2011) confirmed the idea that the survival recall effect is the result of encoding of both item-specific and relational processing. They showed that the survival recall effect disappeared when control conditions were implemented that also activated item-specific and relational processing. The scenario ratings that our participants gave on a number of dimensions (i.e., distinctiveness, imagery, familiarity, richness) might also shed some light on the proximate mechanisms behind the survival recall advan- tage. Like Nairne and Pandeirada (2010), we found that the participants regarded the survival instruction as more distinctive and less familiar than the other scenarios. It might well be the case that distinctive processing fuels the survival recall effect. Although Nairne and Pandeirada (2008) presented evidence that seems to indicate that distinctiveness is an unlikely explanation for the survival recall advantage, more studies are needed to address this issue—in particular, the possibility that it is a combination of distinctiveness, elaboration, and unfamiliarity that produces the survival recall advantage. A possibility that is closely related to this analysis is provided by attention restoration theory (ART). Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan (2008, Experiment 2) showed their participants either pictures of nature (e.g., scenery of Nova Scotia) or pictures of urban environments (i.e., city of Detroit). They found that the first group subsequently performed better on attentional tasks than did the second group, indicating that interaction with nature leads to more bottom-up stimulation than does interaction with urban environments. The authors argued that interaction with nature provides individuals with the opportunity for atten- tional recovery and, therefore, cognitive improvement. This line of reasoning might bear relevance to the memory effects of survival processing, since survival instructions strongly evoke a natural environment (but see Nairne et al., 2009). It is tempting to assume that survival processing maps onto a special cognitive adaptation, a survival module that specifically evolved to process fitness-relevant information. However, evolutionary psychologists would contend that the idea of a specific survival module is too broad (see Nairne et al., 2007) and that natural selection would not develop a module for the sole purpose of survival alone. Hence, another option could be that survival processing activates a multitude of different proximate mechanisms that, together, maximize retention (e.g., self-preservation or predator avoidance systems). It is obvious that further Mem Cogn (2011) 39:1033–1041 studies are needed to unravel the proximate mechanisms behind the adaptive memory effect. To summarize, the aim of the present study was to examine whether stereotype activation could help explain the survival recall advantage. In two experiments, we found that when the survival groupwas compared with a host of new control conditions eliciting strong stereotypes, the survival recall advantage did not disappear. Thus, stereo- type induction is unlikely to explain the survival recall advantage, and therefore our findings add to the generality of the survival recall advantage and to thegrowing body of literature showing that memory is functionally designed. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which per- mits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. References Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). The automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects on trait concept and stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212. Burns, D. J., Burns, S. A., & Hwang, A. J. (2011). Adaptive memory: Determining the proximate mechanisms responsible for the memo- rial advantages of survival processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 206–218. Butler, A. C., Kang, S. H. K., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Congruity effect between materials and processing tasks in the survival processing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1477–1486. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22. Dijksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., Bargh, J. A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2000). On the relation between associative strength and automatic behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 531–544. Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865–877. Hess, T. M., Hinson, J. T., & Statham, J. A. (2004). Explicit and implicit stereotype activation effects on memory: Do age and awareness moderate the impact of priming? Psychology and Aging, 19, 494–505. Howe, M. L., & Derbish, M. H. (2010). On the susceptibility of adaptive memory to false memory illusions. Cognition, 115, 252–267. Hunt, R. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distintiveness. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 421–445. Hunt, R. R., & Worthen, J. B. (2006). Distinctiveness and memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Cohen, S. M. (2008). The mnemonic advantage of processing fitness-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1151–1156.