Brief Report 2 - Levels of Processing PDF

Preview

Summary

Using the template provided, complete the Title / Results / Discussion section based on the Levels of Processing experiment conducted in your Collaborate tutorial session.
The word limit is 400 words (excluding the existing words provided in the template).
I failed - 40%
My marker...

Description

PROCESSING – HOW DO WE DO IT?

Early models of memory proposed that for information to move from short-term memory into long-term memory, people simply had to repeat the information (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). In contrast, Craik and Lockheart (1972) suggested that memory is simply a by-product resulting from the depth to which we process information. Based on this notion, Craik and Lockheart developed their Levels of Processing theory whereby information that is processed more deeply should be better remembered compared to information that is shallowly processed. Craik and Tulving (1975) tested the Levels of Processing theory over several experiments. They first asked participants to process information (i.e., words) at differing levels of depth (e.g., looking at the structure of the word, or the sound of the word) and then gave them a surprise recognition memory test. They showed that participants were better at recognising words that had been processed more deeply compared to words that had been processed shallowly. Additionally, reaction times during the study phase were slower in the deeper processing conditions than the shallow processing conditions. Our study aimed to replicate the findings of Craik and Tulving (1975) using three levels of processing: structural, phonemic, and categorical processing. Following Craik and Tulving’s results, it was predicted that reaction times in the study phase would be related to depth of processing such that participants would be fastest in the shallow processing condition. We also expected that recognition memory performance would be greater in the categorical processing condition and worst in the structural processing condition.

Method Participants A total of 360 students enrolled in PSYC2300 at the University of Newcastle participated as part of their coursework. Materials and Apparatus A total of 120 words were used in the experiment. The experiment was presented via a web-browser and was programmed in Javascript. Responses were recorded using a standard keyboard where ‘z’ indicated a ‘No’ response and ‘m’ indicated a ‘Yes’ response in both the study and test phase. Design The experiment utilised a within-subjects design whereby the independent variables were Level of Processing (structural, phonemic, and categorical processing), and correct study response (Yes or No). The dependent variables were reaction time (ms) during the study phase and proportion correct during the recognition memory test. Procedure Participants followed a link provided to them in in their course materials to run the experiment. In the Study Phase, participants were asked a question related to one of the levels of processing such as “Is the following word in capital letters?”. They then pressed any button and the target word was presented to them for 300ms. They then answered the question using the allocated response keys. There were 60 trials in the study phase, with an equal number of words in each level of processing and correct study response condition. In the test phase, participants were presented with 120 words (60 old and 60 new) one at a time and asked to indicate for each item whether it had been presented in the Study Phase (old).

Results As expected, reaction times participants were fastest in the shallow processing condition, during the study period. In addition to this, recognition memory performance was better in the categorical processing condition and worst in the structural processing condition.

Discussion The hypothesis was supported. Depending on the level of processing, participants’ reactions became either faster or slower. Typeface processing was much faster compared to the level of processing being at the meaning of a word. It is accepted that when a participant needed to process a word deeply, they are more likely to remember it. The main difference between the current experiment and Craik and Lockheart’s (1972) original experiment is that the current experiment’s participants were well educated, young university students who do not represent the general population well.

References Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behaviour, 11, 671-684. Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294....