1038 0.7 0.6 ll 0.5 a c re0.4 n o i tro0.3 p roP0.2 0.1 0 survival survival-stereotype moving Fig. 2 Mean proportions (and SEMs)of correct recall as a function of condition (Experiment 2) For the relevance ratings, results showed a significant effect of condition, F(2,74) = 4.30, p < .05, ŋp2 = .10, with the survival-stereotype group providing higher mean ratings than those in the moving condition (see Table 2).The other posthoc analyses failed to reach significance. To examine whether the relevance ratings affected our survival recall effect, we performed an ANCOVA on correct recall, with ratings as the covariate. As in the previous experiment, the effect of condition remained present, F(2, 73) = 4.07, p < .05, ŋp2 = .10. The findings of Experiment 2 evidently show that the adaptive memory superiority remained intact when we contrasted the survival group with the survival-stereotype group. This implies that the survival recall advantage cannot be accounted for in terms of a stereotype of a robust survival person. Next, we discuss and test two alternative explanations for these findings. One could still argue that our replication of the survival recall effect might be related to the fact that the survival scenario induces more positive traits than do the other scenarios. To test this interpretation, we presented all scenarios (survival, moving, professor, elderly, survival- stereotype) in a random order to a new sample of participants (N = 41, Mage = 21.88 years, SD = 3.50; 12 men) and gave them the same instructions as the ones we used in our pilot study. They had 5 min to provide traits for each scenario. Two raters evaluated the traits (interrater reliability,κ = .72) We performed a repeated measures ANOVA on the number of positive traits and found that the original survival scenario(M = 6.40, SD = 2.11) and the new Table 2 Mean number of intrusions(with standard deviations, inparentheses) of false recall and word ratings Survival Survivalstereotype Moving False Recall 0.23 (0.51) 0.92 (1.55) 0.77 (0.99) Word Ratings 2.51 (0.44) 2.62 (0.42) 2.27 (0.44) Mem Cogn (2011) 39:1033–1041 survivalstereotype scenario (M = 5.60, SD = 1.98) elicited significantly more positive traits than did the moving scenario (M = 3.68, SD = 1.40), the professor condition (M = 3.38, SD = 1.48), and the elderly person condition (M = 0.98, SD = 1.21), F(4, 156) = 74.26, p < .001; ŋp2 = .10 (one missing value). The survival scenario and the survival-stereotype scenario did not significantly differ from each other with regard to the number of positive traits (p = .31). Interestingly, we also found that the elderly person scenario elicited fewer positive traits than did the other scenarios (all ps < .001). We also found that the moving and professor scenarios did not vary concerning the provided positive traits (p > .05). Together, our findings show that the survival and survivalstereotype scenarios induced signifi- cantly more positive traits than did the other scenarios. One could also argue that the pattern of findings reported in Experiments 1 and 2were caused by the original survival instruction being different on a number of dimensions (i.e., distinctiveness[unusualness], imagery, familiarity, richness) from the other instructions that we used in Experiments 1 and 2. Indeed, it is sometimes claimed that the survival instruction is easier to imagine and more distinctive (see Nairne & Pandeirada, 2010) than are other scenarios thatcould promote superior retention (Hunt & Worthen, 2006; Paivio, 2007).This is important because such dimen- sions as distinctiveness and imagery are known to enhance memory retention (Hunt & Worthen, 2006; Paivio, 2007). To examine this issue, we presented an independent group of participants (N = 19, Mage = 22.84 years, SD = 1.26; 6 men) with the different scenarios that we used in the present experiments (survival, survival-stereotype, moving, professor, and elderly person, presented in random order) and asked them to rate these scenarios on a number of dimensions (distinctiveness, imagery, familiarity, richness), using 5-point Likert scales ( 1 = less distinctive, imagery, familiar, rich in details; 5 = highly distinctive, imagery, familiar, rich in details). Repeated measures ANOVAs on these ratings yielded the following findings. We found that the survival scenario was regarded as significantly more distinctive than the other scenarios (see Table 3), F(4, 72) = 9.90, p < .001, ŋp2 = .33. With respect to imagery, we found that the moving and professor scenarios were the easiest to imagine, F(4, 72) = 10.84, p < .001, ŋp2 = .38. We also found that the survival scenario was the least familiar scenario, relative to the other scenarios, F(4, 72) = 10.56, p < .001, ŋ 2 = .37. Asto the richness of the scenarios, our analysis p indicated that the scenarios differed in richness, F(4, 72) = 3.06, p < .05, ŋp2 = .15, and that the survival-stereotype was rated the highest along this dimension; posthoc comparisons did not show any significant differences. These findings are broadly consistent with the results obtained by Nairne and Pandeirada (2010) in that they also show that the survival group was considered to be the most distinctive.