Levels of processing memory model overview

Explain how the levels of processing model of memory

works

Seminars on LOP SAQ comparing and contrasting two models of memory Explain how Biological factors affect cognitive processes

(memory, amnesia & serotonin)

Develop your own theory

Imagine you are a theorist who really disagrees with

Attkinson and Shriffen. Present a one page proposal for new ideas for a theory on memory. The basis of your proposal is provided by the weaknesses of the MSM (notes; Crane 75)- you are trying to overcome such weaknesses. To justify your proposal use examples from your own memory experience.

Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972)

This model was proposed as alternative to the multi-store

model. Craik & Lockhart rejected the idea of separate memory structures put forward by Atkinson & Shiffrin

The model places an emphasizes memory

process rather than the structure like the MSM model. The LOP model based on the idea that the strength of a memory trace is determined by how the original information was processed

LOP: Shallow & Deep Processing

The model proposed that there are different levels of

processing that influence how much is remember

Shallow processing the 1st stage of processing e.g.

recognising the stimulus in terms of its physical appearance or structure e.g. the shape of the letters a word is written in
Deep processing the deepest level of processing involves

encoding the input in terms its meaning (semantics)

The model assumes that shallow processing will lead to weak

short term retention and deep processing will enable long term retention

Shallow processing

Deep processing

Structural (looks like)

Phonological (sounds like)

Semantic (means)

Weak memory trace -leading so short term retention

Strong memory trace leading to long term retention

LOP: Maintenance & Elaborative Rehearsal

The model also proposed that different ways of rehearsing also have an influence on how well we remember: Rehearsing material simply by rote repetition is called maintenance rehearsal and is regarded as shallow processing.

1.

2. Making links with semantic (meaning) associations is called

elaborative rehearsal and is seen as deep processing

The assumption of the model is that shallow processing will give rise to weak short term retention and deep processing will ensure strong, lasting retention

Research Studies for the LOP Model (support & criticisms):

1.

2. 3.

Elias & Perfetti (1973) study of acoustic & semantic encoding & Hyde and Jenkins (1973) effects of the way in which words are processed on recall Tyler et al (1979) Cognitive Effort & Memory & Palmere et al. (1983) elaboration and recall General Evaluative Points

Activity: work in 3 groups - fill in your notes and discuss, then work in new group to teach each other

General evaluative points for LOP model of memory

Elias & Perfetti (1973) study of acoustic & semantic encoding

AIM: Elias & Perfetti (1973) aimed to investigate encoding and memory

PROCEDURE: They gave PPs a number of different tasks to perform on each word in a list, such as:
finding another word that rhymes

or
finding a word that means the same or similar (synonym) to the word on the list.

The rhyming task involved only acoustic coding and hence was a shallow level of processing.
The synonym task involved semantic coding and hence

was a deep level of processing.

 The participants were not told that they would be asked to

recall the words, but nevertheless they did remember some of the words when subsequently tested. This is called incidental learning as opposed to intentional or deliberate learning. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The PPs recalled significantly more words following the synonym task than following the rhyming task, suggesting that deeper levels of processing leads to better recall and thus supporting the LOP model. EVALUATION: Ecological Validity/ Experimental research

Hyde and Jenkins (1973) effects of the way in which words are processed on recall
AIM: To investigate the effects of shallow & deep processing on

recall. PROCEDURE: Hyde and Jenkins (1973) presented auditorily lists of 24 words and asked different groups of participants to perform one of the following so-called orienting tasks: rating the words for pleasantness estimating the frequency with which each word is used in the English language detecting the occurrence of the letters e' and 'g' in any of the words deciding the part of speech appropriate to each word (e.g. noun, adjective) deciding whether the words fitted into a particular sentence frame.

 Rating the words for pleasantness (e.g. is donkey a

pleasant word?) Estimating the frequency with which each word is used in the English language (e.g. how often does donkey appear in the English language?) Detecting the occurrence of the letters e & g in the list words (e.g. is there an e or a g in the word donkey?) Deciding the part of speech appropriate to each word (e.g. is donkey a verb, noun or an adjective?) Deciding whether the words fitted into particular sentences (e.g. does the word donkey fit into the following sentence > I went to the doctor and showed him my ............)

 Five groups of participants performed one of these tasks,

without knowing that they were going to be asked to recall the words (incidental learning group).. An additional five groups of participants performed the tasks but they were told that they should learn the words. (intentional learning group) Finally, there was a control group of participants who were instructed to learn the words but did not do the tasks)

 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS After testing all the

participants for recall of the original word list Hyde and Jenkins found that there were minimal differences in the number of items correctly recalled between the intentional learning groups and the incidental learning groups.
This finding is predicted by Craik and Lockhart and supports

LOP because they believe that retention is simply a byproduct of processing and so intention to learn is unnecessary for learning to occur.

 In addition, Hyde & Jenkins found that the pleasantness rating and rating frequency of usage tasks produced the best recall.
it was found that recall was significantly better for words which had been analysed semantically (i.e. rated for pleasantness or for frequency) than words which had been rated more superficially (shallow) (i.e. detecting 'e' and 'g'). This is also in line with the LOP model because semantic analysis is assumed to be a deeper level of processing

than structural (shallow) analysis. They claimed that this was because these tasks involved semantic processing whereas the other tasks did not.

 one interesting finding was that incidental learners performed just as well as intentional learners in all tasks this suggests that it is the nature of the processing that determines how much you will remember rather than intention to learn. Bear this in mind when you are revising the more processing you perform on the information (e.g. quizzes, essays, spider diagrams etc.) the more likely you are to remember it . EVALUATION: Not totally clear what level of processing is used for the different tasks. More processing = more time spent elaborating the

material. Is this the same or are there two different factors involved? is time different to elaboration? Ecological validity, experimental method/ applicability?

The Criticisms/Limitations of the LOP Model

It is usually the case that deeper levels of processing do lead

to better recall. However, there is an argument about whether it is the depth of processing that leads to better recall or the amount of processing effort that produces the result see Tyler et al (1970) Also any of the the MSM and research that supports can be used as a counter claim in evaluation of the LOP as it fails to recognize that there are indeed two separate stores of memory

Tyler et al (1979) Cognitive Effort & Memory AIM: Tyler et al (1979) investigated the effects of cognitive
effort on memory

PROCEDURES: They gave participants two sets of anagrams

to solve - easy ones, such as DOCTRO or difficult ones such as TREBUT. Afterwards, participants were given an unexpected test for recall of the anagram

 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: Although the processing level was the same, because participants were processing on the basis of meaning, participants remembered more of the difficult anagram words than the easy ones. So Tyler et al concluded that retention is a function of processing effort, not processing depth. KEY EVALUATION POINT : Craik and Lockhart themselves (1986) have since suggested that factors such

as elaboration and distinctiveness are also important in determining the rate of retention; this idea has been supported by research.

For example, Hunt and Elliott (1980) found that people recalled words with distinctive sequences of tall and short letters better than words with less distinctive arrangements of letters

Palmere et al. (1983) elaboration and recall AIM: Palmere et al. (1983) a study of the effects of elaboration on recall PROCEDURE: They made up a 32- paragraph description of a fictitious African nation. 1. Eight paragraphs consisted of a sentence containing a main idea, followed by three sentences each providing an example of the main theme; 2. Eight paragraphs consisted of one main sentence followed by two supplementary sentences; 3. Eight paragraphs consisted of one main sentence followed by a single supplementary sentence 4. The remaining eight paragraphs consisted of a single main sentence with no supplementary information

 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:

Recall of the main ideas varied as a function of the amount of elaboration (extra info given).

Significantly more main ideas were recalled from the elaborated paragraphs than from the single-sentence paragraphs. This kind of evidence suggests that the effects of processing on retention are not as simple as first proposed by the levels of processing model.
EVALUATION: suggests that elaboration is important and Craik & Lockhart (1986) did update their model to include elaboration & distinctiveness as having a major influence on retention

General evaluative points relating to the research

Another problem is that participants typically spend a longer

time processing the deeper or more difficult tasks. So, it could be that the results are partly due to more time being spent on the material. The type of processing, the amount of effort & the length of time spent on processing tend to be confounded. Deeper processing goes with more effort and more time, so it is difficult to know which factor influences the results.

 Associated with the previous point, it is often difficult with many of the tasks used in levels of processing studies to be sure what the level of processing actually is. For example, in the study by Hyde & Jenkins (described above) they assumed that judging a words frequency involved thinking of its meaning, but it is not altogether clear why this should be so.

Also, they argued that the task of deciding the part of speech to which a word belongs is a shallow processing task - but other researchers claim that the task involves deep or semantic processing.
So, a major problem is the lack of any independent measure of processing depth. How deep is deep?

 A major problem with the LOP is circularity, i.e. there is no independent definition of depth. The model predicts that deep processing will lead to better

retention - researchers then conclude that, because retention is better after certain orienting tasks, they must, by definition, involve deep processing

 Eysenck (1978) claims In view of the vagueness with which depth is

defined, there is danger of using retention-test performance to provide information about the depth of processing and then using the ... depth of processing to explain the retention-test performance, a self-defeating exercise in circularity. What he means is that if a person performs well on a test of recall after performing a particular task then some researchers will claim that they must have performed a deep level of processing on the information in order to remember it - a circular argument. Another objection is that levels of processing theory does not really explain why deeper levels of processing is more effective it is descriptive rather than explanatory

 Eysenck (1990) claims that it describes rather than explains

what is happening. However, recent studies have clarified this point - it appears that deeper coding produces better retention because it is more elaborate. Elaborative encoding enriches the memory representation of an item by activating many aspects of its meaning and linking it into the pre-existing network of semantic associations. Deep level semantic coding tends to be more elaborated than shallow physical coding and this is probably why it worked better.

Lesson Objectives
Receive feedback on strengths & weaknesses of MSM

SAQ
Review plans for compare & contrast the MSM & LOP

models
Complete key study sheets, and connect the research

back to the key principles of the LOA

Similarities between the two models (comparison)

Similarities between the two models (comparison)
-they are both models used to explain memory, both use information processing approach, both

have experimental research support (give examples), both have support from experiments, both have weaknesses in terms of the research e.g. Ecological validity,, both are too simple, they both support the key principles of the LOA

SAQ: Compare & contrast two models of one cognitive process i.e. Give the similarities and differences between Multi-Store and Levels of Processing models of memory

of one cognitive process i.e. Give the similarities and differences between Multi-Store and Levels of Processing models of memory

Thesis
There are a number of similarities and differences

between the MSM & LOP models of memory. This paper will compare and contrast the two models, the research that support those models, and the relative strengths and limitations of the two models

The Models: What is different?

The MSM focuses on the structure of memory, and makes a clear distinction between STM & LTM & LOP focuses on the depth of processing as what determines retention 2. LOP does not make the distinction between LTM & STM, and the MSM proposes that STM & LTM are distinct separate stores of memory, and are different to each other in terms of encoding, capacity & duration 3. The MSM model is linear, stating that STM is limited in capacity & duration, and rehearsal leads to a transfer from STM to LTM 4. MSM states that rehearsal is the way in which information is transferred from STM to LTM, but LOP focuses on depth of processing on determining the length of retention
1.

The Models: What is similar?

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Both models of memory which are influenced by the computer metaphor and the both come from the information possessing approach and were developed around the same time Both models are based on the key principles of the level of analysis, that models of psychological processes can be proposed and cognitive processes actively organize and manipulate information that we receive Both seek to explain how memory works, both offer explanations of why some information is retained for longer than others, both have given us insight into the cognitive processes involved in memory Both suggest that encoding has an influence on retention LOP if processing is deep = semantic = longer retention & acoustic = shallow = short retention (Elias & Perfetti, 1973) in MSM - LTM encoding is semantic and STM is acoustic (Baddeley, 1966) Both suggest that rehearsal is important MSM transfer from STM to LTM, and the LOP makes the distinction between maintenance and elaborative rehearsal Both are limited in their ability to explain how memory works, and fail to account for the complexity of human behavior They both take into account factors that the other model ignores LOP ignores distinction between STM & LTM MSM does not take into account the significance of depth of processing

The research supporting the models: What is similar?

1.

2.

3.

Both models have experimental research support, with the use of controlled environments and experimental designs to see examine causal relationships between the manipulation of the IV on the DV This similarity between the research can be seen through comparing Baddeleys (1966) study of the encoding in STM & LTM supporting the MSM model, and Hyde & Jenkins (1973) study of the effects of the depth at which words are processed on recall which supports the LOP model, - both studies required participants to recall word lists, both were carried out in controlled conditions, both had experimental designs, both can be criticized for having low ecological validity. Nevertheless, both studies support their respective models, Hyde & Jenkins (1973) showed that depth of processing does influence recall supporting LOP, and Baddeleys study suggests that STM encoding is acoustic & LTM is semantic supporting MSM

The research supporting the models: What is different?

1.

2.

3.

The MSM model has additional support from case studies of brain damaged individuals such as HM (Milner, 1966) who suffered from anterograde amnesia, and was unable to transfer information from STM to LTM. Furthermore, Shallice & Warringtons (1970) case study of KF who had a severely impaired STM after a motorcycle accident retrograde amnesia. This strengthens the validity of the MSM model, suggesting that there is indeed two distinct separate stores of memory (STM & LTM) The LOP model also has difficulties explaining certain the findings of studies which support the MSM model, for example, Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) carried out an experiment on the serial position effect, which supports MSM suggesting that there are two separate stores of memory, but LOP fails to offer an explanation for this phenomenon. However, MSM is also limited, as it is unable to explain the findings of Hyde & Jenkins (1973) study which clearly suggest that depth of processing is important, thus supporting LOP

The evaluation of the research & models: What is similar?

1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

Both are too simplistic, and fail the both to take into account what the other model does The experimental research that supports both models has methodological issues such as low ecological validity, as much of the research is carried out in an artificial environment which is very different to real life situations The experimental research supporting both models have few ethical issues, but its vital for such studies to closely follow APA ethical guidelines Both models have supporting research which is easily replicable, it can and should be replicated cross culturally to ensure that the models are valid They both have practical applications: MSM highlights the importance of rehearsal to transfer information to LTM, and chunking to enhance the capacity of STM, furthermore, LOP suggests that when studying deep processing tasks will lead to longer retention.

The evaluation of the research & models: What is different?

1.

2.

3.

The research that supports the LOP, showing that depth of processing is important in retention, is limited by the possibility of confounding variables of processing effort and time, however, the research supporting the MSM does not have such problems The LOP model has a major problem in terms of its circularity, as the model predicts that deep processing will lead to better retention, and researchers conclude that because better retention is due to certain processing tasks, they must involve deep processing. On the other hand the MSM model does not have such problems. However, Craik & Lockhart (1986) have been open to adapting the LOP model, and did integrate elaboration & distinctiveness of information as crucial factors influencing retention and in contrast the MSM fails to account for how more distinctive information can be retained for longer

Conclusion:
The MSM have a number of similarities and

differences, but together, they have deepened our understanding of how memory works and offered greater insight into the complexity of human cognition

Word bank:
However On the other hand In contrast In comparison Conversely A similarity is A difference is.. Moreover

Differences between the two models (contrast)

-they explain memory in different ways, focus on

different aspects of memory (structure/process), the have different types of research supporting them (e.g. MSM-more case studies), the research supporting the models has different strengths & weaknesses

Evaluation of LOP
Influential model emphasis on mental processes rather

than rigid structures, Descriptive rather that explanatory model e.g. how do you define what is deep and shallow processing
Does not include the amount of effort one puts into

learning as an important factors

However, Craik and Lockhart (1986) have suggested that

elaboration on information and the distinctiveness of information are also important in determining memory

Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart)

Evaluation of MSM
Distinguishes between STM & LTM
Milner (1966) case study of HM supports this distinction

anterograde amnesia

Model is too simplistic and inflexible Does not take into account the strategies people use to remember

things it emphasises the amount of information processes rather than its nature involved

To much emphasis on structure without explaining the processes Rehearsal as the only transfer from STM to LTM has been

criticized LOP theory