LEVELS OF PROCESSING

Experiment Number - 4
Date of experiment - 18/10/23
Experimenter - YD
Subject - SM
Introduction:
The levels of processing model (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) focuses on the depth of processing
involved in memory and predicts the deeper information is processed, the longer a memory
trace will last.
Craik defined depth as: "the meaningfulness extracted from the stimulus rather than in terms of
the number of analyses performed upon it.” Unlike the multi-store model, it is a non-structured
approach. The basic idea is that memory is just what happens as a result of processing
information. Memory is just a by-product of the depth of processing of information, and there is
no clear distinction between short-term and long-term memory.Therefore, instead of
concentrating on the stores/structures involved (i.e. short-term memory & long-term memory),
this theory concentrates on the processes involved in memory.
Shallow Processing -
This takes two forms:
1. Structural processing (appearance) which is when we encode only the physical qualities
of something. E.g. the typeface of a word or how the letters look.
2. Phonemic processing – which is 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.

Deep Processing -
This takes two forms:
1. Semantic processing, which happens when we encode the meaning of a word and relate it
to similar words with similar meanings.
 2. 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.
Summary -
Levels of Processing: 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.
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.
1. Reworking:- Putting information in your own words or talking about it with someone
else.
2. Method of Loci:- When trying to remember a list of items, linking each with a familiar
place or route.
3. Imagery:- By creating an image of something you want to remember, you elaborate on it
and encode it visually (i.e. a mind map).
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.

Critical Evaluation -
Strengths:- The theory is an improvement on Atkinson & Shiffrin’s account of transfer from
STM to LTM. For example, elaboration rehearsal leads to the recall of information rather than
just maintenance rehearsal. The levels of processing model changed the direction of memory
research. It showed that encoding was not a simple, straightforward process. This widened the
focus from seeing long-term memory as a simple storage unit to seeing it as a complex
processing system. Craik and Lockhart's ideas led to hundreds of experiments, most of which
confirmed the superiority of 'deep' semantic processing for remembering information. It explains
why we remember some things much better and for much longer than others. This explanation of
memory is useful in everyday life because it highlights how elaboration, which requires deeper
processing of information, can aid memory.
Weakness:- Despite these strengths, there are a number of criticisms of the levels of processing
theory: Despite these strengths, there are a number of criticisms of the levels of processing
theory: 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 to the pre-
existing network of semantic associations.
Later research indicated that processing is more complex and varied than the levels of processing
theory suggests. In other words, there is more to processing than depth and elaboration.
For example, research by Bransford et al. (1979) indicated that a sentence such as, 'A mosquito is
like a doctor because both draw blood' is more likely to be recalled than the more elaborated
sentence, 'A mosquito is like a racoon because they both have head, legs and jaws'. It appears
that it is the distinctiveness of the first sentence which makes it easier to remember - it's unusual
to compare a doctor to a mosquito.
As a result, the sentence stands out and is more easily recalled. 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.
The ideas of 'depth' and 'elaboration' are vague and ill-defined (Eysenck, 1978). As a result, they
are difficult to measure. Indeed, there is no independent way of measuring the depth of
processing. This can lead to a circular argument - it is predicted that deeply processed
information will be remembered better, but the measure of depth of processing is how well the
information is remembered.
The level of processing theory focuses on the processes involved in memory and thus ignores the
structures. There is evidence to support the idea of memory structures such as STM and LTM as
the Multi-Store Model proposed (e.g. H.M., serial position effect etc). Therefore, memory is
more complex than described by the LOP theory.
Aim: To demonstrate that the accuracy of recall differs based on the level at which information
was processed.

Problem: To study the effect of different levels of processing on recall of material.

Hypothesis: Recall is higher at the deeper level of processing.

Variables:
Independent Variable - The orientation task- two levels are surface level & deeper level.

Dependent Variable - Recall of words.

Confounding Variable -
1. Method of Presentation
2. Recency effect
3. Fatigue & Distraction
4. Time of Exposure

Design and Plan:

Within the subject design with randomized presentation of the series. The subject is presented
with two orienting tasks involving the subject to decide whether words presented on a set of
cards are in upper case and lower case. The second task involved the subject deciding whether
the words presented on a second set of cards fit into a sentence or not. After the orientating tasks,
a 5-minute pause is given and the subject is asked to recall all the words he/she saw.

Materials Required:
1. Two sets of cards -each with a stimulus word on one side and the orienting task on the
other. The first set of stimulus words is printed in “upper/lower case” , which may or may
not correspond to the actual printing of the stimulus word. The second set of cards has a
sentence with a blank space on one side and the stimulus word on the other. The stimulus
word may or may not complete the sentence on the other.
2. Four example cards
3. List of stimulus words for verification (key)
4. Stop Clock
5. Writing materials
6. Wooden screen

Precautions:
1. In each series, the cards are re-shuffled to ensure random presentation.
2. Each word is exposed for the same amount of time (six seconds for the stimulus word and
three seconds for the orienting task).
 3. The series are randomly presented for each subject
4. A rest pause of five minutes is given after the two orienting tasks and before the recall to
avoid the recency effect.
5. A rest pause of one minute is given between each series and a five-minute pause before
recall to combat fatigue.
6. Distraction of any nature is kept to a minimum level.
7. The subject should be unaware that a recall task will follow the orienting task.
8. The subject should be unaware that a recall task will follow the orienting task.
9. Instructions and examples should be clear.
10. The experimenter must pretend to note down the responses for each orienting task to
avoid cueing the subjects.

Procedure:
The subject is seated comfortably in a quiet room at a table of comfortable/ suitable height. A
screen, to avoid pre-exposure of the cards, is used. Rapport is built with the subject to put him/
he at ease. The subject is given the data sheet and is requested to fill in the background
information. The experiment enters notes of the date and time of experimentation.

Surface Level (Physical Processing) –

The experimenter selects the cards with “ uppercase” and “ lowercase” printed on them. He/she
instructs the subject that he/she has decided whether the stimulus word is in “uppercase” or in
“lowercase”. The experimenter shuffles the cards thoroughly and presents them using the flash
card technique. Each card is presented with the orienting task first for three seconds or till the
response is obtained, whichever comes earlier. After all the cards are exposed, the subject is
given a rest pause of one in and the experimenter proceeds to the next series.

Deep Level (Semantic Processing) –

The experimenter selects the cards with sentences and instructs the subject that he/she has to
decide whether the stimulus words fill the blank in orienting tasks for 3 seconds or till a response
is obtained After all the cards are exposed to the subject, he/she is asked to recall all the stimulus
words and write them down.
Instructions:
Surface Level (Physical Processing) –
“You will be shown a set of cards one at a time. In this set, each card will have either the word
“uppercase” or “lowercase” written on it. Behind each word will be another word which is the
stimulus word. You have to decide whether the stimulus word is in the case that matches the
orienting task or not.
For example, the first may have the “ upper case and the stimulus word may be printed in “ lower
case”, Here your response should be “ NO”
The second card may also have upper case and the stimulus word may be printed in upper case.
In this case, your response should be “ yes” and so on. Have you understood the task? (Clarify
any doubts at this stage), can we begin now?

Deep Level (Semantic Processing) –

You will be shown a set of cards one at a time. In this set, each card will have a sentence with a
blank similar to a fill-in-the-blanks.
On the blank of the card, the stimulus word that may or may not actually fill the blanks is given.
You decide whether the stimulus word fills the blank in the first sentence or not.
For example, the first card may have the sentence, “ roses are __________ in colour”; on it and
the stimulus word may be “ new”. Here your response should be “No”
The second card may have, “ A __________ is a man's best friend”. on the one side and the
stimulus word may be “Dog”. In those cases, your response should be “ yes” and so on.

Recall Task:
After the second series, the subject is given a 5-minute rest pause and then given the instructions
for the recall task which is:
“ Please try to recall all the stimulus words from all the series in any order”.

Recording of Data:
The number of stimulus words recalled in each series is noted down.

Analysis of the Data:

1. The number of words correctly recalled by the subject in each series is calculated.
 2. A bar graph is drawn showing the number of words correctly recalled to each level of
processing.
3. The average number of words correctly recalled in each series by the group is calculated.
4. A bar graph is drawn showing the average number of words correctly recalled by the
group for each level of processing.

Table 1:

Number of Words correctly recalled by the Subject in Different Levels of Processing.

Physical Level Deep Level

Sl. No Name Difference
(Surface Level) (Semantic Level)

1 SM 3 7 4

Table 2:

Showing the Number of Words Correctly Recalled by the Group.

Physical Level Deep Level

Sl. No Name Difference
(Surface Level) (Semantic Level)

1 SM 3 7 4

2 AC 6 6 0
3 CH 8 12 4
4 AG 6 10 4
5 DM 13 10 3
6 MR 12 10 2
7 VN 14 7 7
8 SKB 10 6 4
9 AM 8 12 4
10 BC 10 17 7
 Total 90 97 39

Mean 9 9.7 3.9

Graph 1:

A graph representing the number of words correctly recalled by the subject in different levels of
processing.

Graph 2:
A graph representing the number of words correctly recalled by the group in different levels of
processing.

Individual Discussion:
The aim of the experiment is to study the effect of different levels of processing on the recall of
the material. The experiment was conducted on subject SM doing her undergraduate in
Psychology, in Christ (Deemed-to-be-University).
Table 1 shows the number of words recalled at physical and semantic levels by the subject. The
number of words recalled by the subject at the physical level is 3 and in semantic level is 7 and
the difference is 4.
Thus the subject confirms the hypothesis as the recall is higher in semantic/deeper level of
processing.

Group Discussion:
The experiment was conducted on a heterogeneous group, aged between 17 to 19 years, doing
their undergraduate studies in Christ (Deemed-to-be-University).
Table 2 shows the number of words recalled at physical and semantic levels by the group. The
number of words recalled by the group under the physical level is 90 and the mean is 9 and in the
semantic level 97 and the mean is 9.7 and the difference is 39 with a mean of 3.9.
Thus, the group also confirms the hypothesis, as the recall is higher in the semantic level of
processing.

Conclusion:
1. The subject results prove the hypothesis which says that the recall is higher in the
semantic level of processing.
2. The group results prove the hypothesis which says that the recall is higher in the semantic
level of processing.
3. Individual differences exist.
 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(6), 671–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x