Levels-of-processing effect

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Cognitive Psychology: Attention · Decision making · Learning · Judgement · Memory · Motivation · Perception · Reasoning · Thinking  - Cognitive processes Cognition - Outline Index

---

The levels-of-processing effect was first identified by Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972.

The fundamental concept of the levels-of-processing effect is that different methods of encoding information into memory result in different types of memory codes. Memory codes differ in their strength. The strength of the memory code, in turn, determines speed of decay of the memory trace and success of (recall) from memory over time.

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?"). 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 surprise 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. Also, there was higher recall when the words were connected by logic (fish and ocean), as opposed to concretely connected words (fish and hand). Effects such as these are termed the self-reference effect.

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 sentence); deep code; strong memory trace; slow decay

The test used to illustrate their hypothesis showed, roughly speaking, that:

1. Those that hear a passage of text can recall parts of it (audible input)
2. Those that read a passage of text can recall most of it (visual input)
3. Those that write down the text can recall most if not all of it, even with the written form taken away (audible or visual input plus physical output)
4. Those that understand the meaning behind the text will have the strongest ability to recall the passage (conceptual input)

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).

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
• 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.
• Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Cognitive Psychology fourth Edition. Memory, 5, 167-169.

External links

• Science aid: Levels of Processing Psychology resource for teens
• Paper on the Craik and Lockhart work
• Experiments related to the cognitive effect

---