10: Levels of Processing Theory and Experiments
Levels of Processing Theory
Origin of the Theory
Developed by Craik in 2002.
Influenced by Treisman’s theory of selective attention, which evolved into the feature integration theory.
Concept: Features build up into larger components, culminating in objects.
Key principle: Deeper analysis necessitates more attention.
Proposition: Memory may exhibit the same pattern where depth of analysis predicts memory longevity.
Collaborated with Lockhart on a theoretical piece (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) which has received significant citations:
Current citation counts:
Scopus: 5,666; 6,208; 6,531; 6,866
Google Scholar: 15,804; 16,949; 17,760; 18,543
Concept of Levels of Processing (LOP)
Asserts that remembering is not simply retrieving stored information, likened to finding items in a warehouse.
Proposes that there are not discrete structural memory stores; rather, there are different memory processes categorized as primary and secondary.
Claims that remembering reflects the quality of processing during encoding:
The deeper the analysis during encoding, the higher the likelihood of subsequent remembrance.
Processing ranges from shallow (surface features) to deeper conceptual analysis.
Updated understanding indicates that a fixed order of depth may be unlikely.
Shallow vs. deep processing is characterized as a qualitative difference rather than a quantitative one.
Evidence Supporting LOP: Craik & Tulving (1975)
Conducted 10 experiments aimed at empirically testing LOP principles.
Utilized semantic orienting questions to assess memory recall:
Items that are congruent (e.g., Is a soprano a singer?) are remembered better than incongruent items (e.g., Is mustard concave?).
Discussed challenges regarding organization at encoding and retrieval, including item-specific vs. relational organization.
Noted issues with the circularity in defining “deep” processing.
Highlighted concerns about the processing time involved in memory tasks.
General Method in LOP Experiments
Study Methodology
Participants were misled to believe the experiment focused on perception and reaction speed.
Words were presented for 200 milliseconds using a tachistoscope.
Participants answered orienting questions regarding each word, with reaction times recorded:
Types of Questions:
Structural (e.g., Is it in capitals?)
Phonemic (e.g., Does it rhyme with __?)
Category (e.g., Is it a ___?)
Sentence (e.g., Does it fit in: “He met a ___ in the street”?)
Conducted a surprise retention test encompassing free recall, cued recall, and recognition tasks.
Experiment Breakdown
Experiment 1 (n = 20):
Explored five levels of processing:
Is there a word present?
Is it in capitals?
Does it rhyme with ___?
Is it in the category ____?
Does it fit into the sentence __?
Included an old/new recognition test with printed words, where participants circled familiar ones.
Findings from Experiments
Experiment 2 (n = 24):
Recognitions plotted against initial decision time revealed a linear relationship.
Slope for affirmative (Yes) responses was steeper compared to negative (No) responses, suggesting processing time may be more significant than mere level of processing.
Experiments 3 & 4 (n = 20):
Explored three levels of processing involving case, rhyme, and sentence structures.
Experiment 3 involved incidental encoding while Experiment 4 focused on intentional encoding.
Half of the words in each condition were presented twice to enhance encoding, with a consistent LOP and response congruency condition but varying queries for rhyme and sentence types.
Comparison of Incidental vs. Intentional Encoding
Discussion of Results from Experiments 1-4:
Provided support for the LOP principle: deeper processing enhances retention, applicable to both incidental and intentional encoding.
Noted inconsistencies such as:
Decision times for Yes and No responses were similar, yet memory performance varied significantly, particularly at deeper LOPs.
Suggested that decision time may not serve as a suitable indicator of memory success.
Proposed a distinction between quantitative processing time and qualitative elaboration degree.
Further Experiments and Analysis
Experiment 5 (n = 24):
Investigated the role of processing time:
Tested with a slow non-semantic question to determine if a word fits a consonant-vowel pattern.
Example: CCVVC → brain (yes);
Used a semantic sentence question and conducted an old/new recognition test.
Experiment 6 (n = 16):
Addressed why congruent (Yes) items are more easily remembered than incongruent (No) items:
Both require semantic processing albeit differ in the extent of integration or elaboration.
Example: Four-footed animal? BEAR vs. CLOUD.
Congruent targets integrate better with cues, while elaborate features aid recall more accurately.
Sample statistics: Recall for Yes = 0.36, for No = 0.39.
Experiment 7 (n = 20):
Utilized only sentence questions with varying encoding complexity.
Sentences like “He dropped the _” or “The old man hobbled across the room…” employed complexity in eliciting responses. Watch is ‘yes’ to both
Finished with free recall (No Congruence Recall) and followed with sentence cued recall.
Refining Depth and Elaboration Understanding
Depth vs. Elaboration:
While depth (from structure to phoneme to semantics) is crucial, the degree of elaboration within the level also plays a significant role.
Explored spreading or quantity of encoded features.
Suggested that the effects of differential encoding could be minimized.
Noted the variation between frequent vs. infrequent trial types impacting memorability.
Classroom Demonstration and Monetary Incentives
Experiment 9: Classroom Demonstration:
Implemented a relaxed control over procedures for intentional encoding.
Words were projected in a group setting (n = 12 participants).
Responses recorded on paper with no reaction time measures employed during testing.
Experiment 10:
Examined the effect of offering monetary incentives ($0.01, $0.03, or $0.06) for the recognition of shallowly processed words within the context of intentional encoding.
Conditions manipulated across three groups of participants (n = 3 groups of 12).
Broad Conclusions and Implications
Discussion Insights:
The crux of memory retention is not solely about the intention to learn or the effort exerted; rather, it is the qualitative nature of tasks and operations performed on items that significantly influences retention.
Emphasized how depth is not as rigid as initially thought, underscoring the importance of elaboration.
Critiqued the role of processing time as a predictor for retention.
Concept of Consolidation:
Noted that while deep processing is both necessary and beneficial, it is not independently sufficient for later episodic memory recall.
Raised questions regarding the phenomenon where individuals with amnesia can execute processing tasks without demonstrating retention.
Also queried why divided attention during encoding diminishes retention while allowing task execution to remain intact.
Concluded that consolidation involves a set of neurological processes that operate outside conscious awareness and cognitive control.
Advances in Memory Research
30 Years Later… Hierarchical Model:
Discusses a context-free approach to understanding memory.
Categories of memory identified as:
"Semantic memory" for global concepts.
"Episodic memory" for context-specific details, such as names.