Levels of Processing: Craik And Lockhart: The levels of processing model of memory (Craik and Lockhart, 1972) was put forward partly as a result of the criticism leveled at the multi-store model. Instead of concentrating on the stores/structures involved (i.e., short-term memory and long- term memory), this theory concentrates on the processes involved in memory. Unlike the multi-store model it is a non-structured approach. The basic idea is that memory is really just what happens as a result of processing information. Psychologists Craik and Lockhart propose that memory is just a by-product of the depth of processing of information and there is no clear distinction between short-term memory and long-term memory. Craik defined depth as “the meaningfulness extracted from the stimulus rather than in terms of the number of analyses performed upon it.”
In this model, Shallow Processing takes two forms–structural and phonetic processing. Structural processing (appearance) occurs when we encode only the physical qualities of something. For example, the typeface of a word or how the letters look. Phonemic processing occurs when we encode its sound. Shallow processing only involves maintenance rehearsal (repetition to help us hold something in the STM) and leads to fairly short-term retention of information. This is the only type of rehearsal to take place within the multi-store model. On the contrary, Deep Processing involves semantic processing, which happens when we encode the meaning of a word and relate it to similar words with similar meaning. Deep processing involves elaboration rehearsal which involves a more meaningful analysis (e.g. images, thinking, associations etc.) of information and leads to better recall. For example, giving words a meaning or linking them with previous knowledge.
To sum up, the idea that the way information is encoded affects how well it is remembered. The deeper the level of processing, the easier the information is to recall. Its aim is to investigate how deep and shallow processing affects memory recall.
Method: Participants were presented with a series of 60 words about which they had to answer one of three questions. Some questions required the participants to process the word in a deep way (e.g. semantic) and others in a shallow way (e.g. structural and phonemic). For example:
Structural / visual processing: ‘Is the word in capital letters or small letters?
Phonemic / auditory processing: ‘Does the word rhyme with . . .?’
Semantic processing: ‘Does the word go in this sentence . . . . ?
Participants were then given a long list of 180 words into which the original words had been mixed. They were asked to pick out the original words.
Results: Participants recalled more words that were semantically processed compared to phonemically and visually processed words.
Conclusion: Semantically processed words involve elaboration rehearsal and deep processing which results in more accurate recall. Phonemic and visually processed words involve shallow processing and less accurate recall.
Real Life Applications: This explanation of memory is useful in everyday life because it highlights the way in which elaboration, which requires deeper processing of information, can aid memory. Three examples of this are:
Reworking: Putting information in your own words or talking about it with someone else.
Method of Loci: When trying to remember a list of items, linking each with a familiar place or route.
Imagery: By creating an image of something you want to remember, you elaborate on it and encode it visually (i.e. a mind map).
anand
The above examples could all be used to revise psychology using semantic processing (e.g. explaining memory models to your mum, using mind maps etc.) and should result in deeper processing through using elaboration rehearsal. Consequently more information will be remembered (and recalled) and better exam results should be achieved.
Levels of Processing versus Information Processing: While structural components are emphasized information-processing models, Craik and Lockhart have first postulate process and then formulated a memory system in terms of these operations. Another point of difference is the sequence of stages being emphasized by the information processing models. Levels-of-processing model states that memory traces are formed as a by-product of perceptual processing whereby linking the durability of memory with the depth of processing. However, the levels-of processing model has been criticised because while it is vague and largely untestable, it makes a very ordinary conclusion that meaningful events are well remembered. Since the well remembered events are designated “deeply processed,” without any objective and independent index of depth.
The notions concerning rehearsal also make the two models different whereby the information processing model rehearsal transfers information to a longer-lasting memory store, while LOP sees rehearsal as either maintaining information or processing it to a deeper level of the memory.
In order to whether the level of processing affected how well we remember information, Craik and Tulving (1975) conducted an experiment in which participants were shown a list of 60 words. They were then asked to recall certain words by being shown one of three questions, each testing different level of processing. The researchers found that participants were better able to recall words which had been processed more deeply–that is, processed semantically, supporting level of processing theory. Moreover, similar were the findings of D’Agostino, O’Neill, and Paivio (1977); Klein and Saltz (1976); and Schulman (1974).
0 Comments