Content deleted Content added
Aaron Schulz (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1:
The '''levels-of-processing effect''' was first identified by [[Fergus I. M. Craik]] and Lockhart<!-- Please cite that publication. The Craik is Fergus I. M. Craik. What about Lockhart? Did that person have a first name? --> in [[1972]].<!-- I have found and included the citation -->
The fundamental concept of the levels-of-processing effect, is that different methods of encoding information into [[memory]]
This structure of memory suggests that memory doesn’t have separate levels of storage. This is contrary to views such as the three-store model of memory. Levels-of-Processing considers that there is an infinite number of processing levels of memory being encoded. The levels are indistinct and boundaries between the levels are nonexistent. Under this model, storage is said to be determined by processing.
Craik & Lockhart (1972) used an incidental learning task to examine the hypothesis that the manner of encoding affects the strength of the resulting memory trace. Research participants in the incidental learning task viewed a series of words on a computer screen and answered simple yes/no questions about those words (e.g., "Is the word printed in capital letters?").
Physical- Visual feature of the word (lowercase, uppercase)▼
The types of questions the participants were asked to answer were designed to affect the manner in which the words were encoded into memory. Certain questions had participants encode the '''physical''' aspects of the stimuli (e.g., "Is the word printed in capital letters?"). Other questions had participants encode the '''acoustic''' properties of the stimuli (e.g., "Does this word rhyme with "DOG"?"). Other questions had participants encode the '''semantic''' aspects of the stimuli (e.g., "Does the word fit in the following sentence - "The ________ walked into the house"). Following the incidental learning task, participants were given a suprise memory test.
Craik & Lockhart predicted that attending to the physical features of the stimuli would to result in shallow encoding and a weak memory trace. Attending to the acoustic properties of the stimuli would result in a moderate level of processing and a moderately strong memory trace. Attending to the semantic properties of the stimulus would result in the deepest level of processing and the strongest memory trace. The results of the experiment confirmed the hypothesis. The deeper the level of processing, the more likely it was that the word would be remembered--[[User:Sifonis|Sifonis]] 05:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC). Also, there was higher recall when the words were connected by logic (fish and ocean)<!-- this would indicate an association in semantic memory -->, as opposed to concretely connected words (fish and hand). Effects such as these are termed the self-reference effect.<!-- This is just wrong. The self-reference effect is when memory is improved because the person encodes the new information by tying the information in with his or her own life and experiences-->
▲Physical- Visual feature of the word (lowercase, uppercase); shallow code; weak memory trace; fast decay
Acoustic- Sound the word makes (rhyming); moderate code; moderate strength memory trace; moderate decay
Semantic- deeper meaning or function of the word (pleasantness of word, ability of word to fit in a sentance); deep code; strong memory trace; slow decay
The test used to illustrate their [[hypothesis]] showed, roughly speaking, that:
Line 19 ⟶ 23:
The sliding-scale of increased ability to encode/recall is the focus of the study. Greater processing will lead to greater amounts of information available for recall. Craik and Lockhart postulate depth of processing to fall on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing (e.g., processing words based on their phonemic and orthographic components) leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid decay. Conversely, deep processing (e.g., semantic or meaning based processing) results in a more durable memory trace.
Whether the information is being encoded more effectively or being recalled more effectively is unclear. A typical paradigm employed to investigate the Levels of Processing theory is the incidental learning paradigm. Results reveal superior recall for items processed deeply compared to those items processed at the more shallow level (Eysenck, 1974: Hyde & Jenkins, 1969)<!-- Craik and Lockhart used an incidental learning paradigm. All that an incidental learning paradigm is, is a task in which people don't know that their memory for the stimuli presented in the task will be tested later. Consequently, they don't purposefully engage in any tricks to improve their memory for the stimuli. Any learning is incidental - hence the name -->.
== External links ==
Line 27 ⟶ 31:
== References ==
* Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. ''Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior'',''11'', 671-684.--[[User:Sifonis|Sifonis]] 05:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
* Eysenck, M.W. (1974). Age differences in incidental learning. Developmental Psychology, 10, 936-941.
* Hyde, T.S., & Jenkins, J.J. (1969). Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 472-481.
| |||