Levels of processing model

Levels of processing model

1. Craik and Lockhart 1972

   • Places an emphasis on memory processes.
   • Based on the idea that the strength of a memory trace is determined by how the original information was processed.
   • Proposed that there are different levels of processing that influence how much is remembered.
   • The stages:
     • The 1st stage: shallow processing
       • Structural/visual - recognising the stimulus in terms of its physical appearance e.g. the shape of the letters in a word.
       • Acoustic encoding - is also in between structural and semantic encoding - its deeper than structural processing, but shallower than semantic processing.
     • The 2nd stage: deep processing
       • The deepest level of processing involves encoding at a semantic level.
   • The model assumes that shallow processing leads to weak short-term retention and deep processing will enable long-term retention.
   • The model is proposed that different ways of rehearsing also have an influence on how well we remember:
     • 1. Rehearsing material simply by rate repetition is called maintenance rehearsal and is regarded as shallow processing.
     • 2. Making links with semantic associations is called elaborative rehearsal and is seen as deep processing.

2. Elias and Perfetti 1973

   • Experiment on acoustic and semantic encoding.
     • Aim: To investigate encoding and memory.
   • Method:
     • They gave student pps a number of different tasks to perform on each word in a list, such as:
       • Finding another word that rhymes (acoustic task).
         • Shallow processing
       • Finding a word that means the same or similar (semantic task).
         • Deep processing
     • Pps were not told that they would be asked to recall the words, but never the less they did remember some of the words when subsequently tested.
       • This is called incidental learning as opposed to deliberate or intentional learning.
   • Findings:
     • Pps recalled significantly more words following the deep processing task than following the shallow processing task.
       • Suggesting that deeper levels of processing lead to better recall and thus supporting the LOP model.

3. Craik and Tulving 1975

   • Aim: to investigate how deep and shallow processing effects memory recall.
   • Method:
     • Pps presented with a series of 60 words about which they had to answer 1 of 3 questions.
       • Some questions required the pps to process the word in a deep way and others in a shallow way
         • Is the word in capital or small letters? (Shallow)
         • Does the word go in this sentence...? (Deep)
     • Pps were then given a long list of 180 words into which the origional words had been mixed.
   • Results:
     • Pps remembered more words that were semantically processed (deep) compared to acoustic or visually processed (shallow).
   • Evaluation:
     • Lacks ecological validity, due to lab experiment.
     • High control of extraneous variable increases validity because only 1 variable has an effect on results (measuring what it claims to measure).
     • Recognition not recall may have an effect on results.
     • Craik may be bias - it is his theory the study aims to support.

4. Weaknesses of the model:

   • It uses the case that deeper levels of processing lead to better recall.
     • There is an argument about whether it is depth of processing that leads to better recall or the amount of processing effort that produces the results.
       • Tyler et al
   • Also the multi-store model and any research that supports it can be used as a counter claim in evaluation of LOP - as it fails to recognise that there are indeed two separate stores of memory.

5. Opposing research:

   • Tyler et al 1979
     • Aim: To investigate the effect of cognitive effort on memory.
     • Procedure:
       • They gave pps 2 sets of anagrams to solve, easy ones and difficult ones.
       • Afterwards, pps were given an unexpected test for recall of the anagrams.
     • Findings:
       • Although the processing level was the same because pps were processing on the basis of meaning, pps remembered more of the difficult anagram words than the easy ones.
     • Conclusion:
       • Retention is a function of processing effort, not processing depth.
     • Evaluation:
       • Craik and Lockhart themselves have suggested that factors such elaboration and distinctiveness are also important in determining the rate of retention.
         • This idea has been supported by research:
           • For example, Hunt and Elliot (1980) found that people recalled words with distinctive sequences of tall and short letters better than words with less distinctive arrangements of letters.

6. General evaluative points relating to the research:

   • Pps typically spend a longer time processing the deeper more difficult tasks.
   • The type of processing, the amount of effort and the length of time spent on processing tend to be confounded.
   • The LOP model offers a circular argument i.e. there is no independent definition of depth.
     • The model prdicts that deep processing will lead to better retention - researchers then conclude that retention is better after certain orienting tasks; the tasks must by definition involve deep processing.
   • The model is descriptive rather than explanatory.