In our daily lives, individuals rely on the ability to pull information from our memories to aid and assist us in our day-to-day interactions, schooling, and work environment, amongst other things. To actually understand how we are able to do this is more complex, so let’s take a deeper dive into it. At the beginning of the semester, we touched upon the topic of memory and its relation to our everyday lives. More specifically we discussed the Levels of Processing Theory and the ways in which encoding relates to this. This model suggests that the way that we encode is a determining factor in how well we are able to remember information and additionally, how encoding is a process that describes how information is introduced into our memory system via our sensory input.
Levels of Processing Model
Craik and Tulving in their 1975 levels of processing model asserted that there is a level of depth that is required for memory function. According to this model, the ways in which we process information influence the extent that is actually memorized. We process information in three ways:
- Structural
- Phonemic
- Semantic
The structural level is the first level of processing that is based on appearance. The phonemic level is in reference to sound, for example, poems and rhyming. Finally, there is the semantic level of processing which occurs after a word is heard and is related to other words that have similar meanings. This level is referred to as a “deep” level that Craik and Tulving (1975) address in their study.
Craik and Tulving’s Study
Within their study, the duo presented their participants with words that required them to either process the word in a deep manner (semantic) or in a shallow manner (structural or phonemic). In recalling the words, the results showed that semantic was best, phonemic was better, and structural was the worst. In order to accurately recall the words, deep processing proceeds more accurate results whereas the shallow processing of information resulted in poor recollection. This ultimately suggests that longer-lasting, stronger, and more detailed memories are brought about by not only linking them to other information but thinking about them in a deeper fashion.
Supporting Research by Joel Saegert
Other research that corresponds with Craik and Tulving’s (1975) theory demonstrates the duo’s original idea just a few years after its initial introduction. For example, Joel Saegert at The University of Texas at San Antonio conducted an experiment by directing attention to either physical or semantic aspects by varying the level of processing brand names in an attempt to further his understanding of the concept of memory. Saegert’s participants were asked to attend to brand names in advertisements. Their attention was directed to physical features for the first portion and for the other half, their attention was placed on semantic characteristics (Saegert, 1979). By manipulating it in this manner, the author was hoping to create a clear dichotomy between the levels.
The results of the study asserted for both recognition as well as recall, that for the subjects, retention was superior when the ads were accompanied by a deep processing question rather than in the context of shallowness. Saegert (1979) assumes that Craik, Tulving, and even Lockhart’s theory can be used to explain not simply memory and advertisements but memory and the full range of what accompanies it.
Michael Eysenck’s Critique
In another review of Craik and Tulving’s theory, British psychology Michael Eysenck (1978) directs his attention to the depth of processing on retention. He suggests that while there are numerous studies that can provide general reinforcement for this specific ideology, there are also studies that provide counter-evidence. One thing brought up in Eysenck’s study is the concept that memory traces can be formed and remain durable even if it is considered shallow processing (Eysenck, 1978).
For instance, it is not uncommon to answer the phone without looking at the identity of the caller yet still be able to recognize the caller merely by their voice. So, contrary to Craik and Tulving’s preference for encoding information, it is not impossible for long-term storage of phonemic information (Eysenck, 1978).
Application in Education
According to a study aimed at improving study habits, researchers found that the benefits of semantic processes outweigh the cons. With the levels of processing in mind, personnel found that reading the text over and over plus memorizing facts by repetition is a common misconception that students have for committing information into memory (Bugg et al., 2008).
Researchers had undergraduates at the institution participate in the remake of Craik and Tulving’s 1975 study. Prior to the semantic study, a mere 14% of students reported relying on the semantic strategy and afterward, nearly 68% noted that they would utilize this as a way to prepare for the next exam (Bugg et al., 2008).
Personal Reflection
As a college student, a vast majority of my time is spent reading through textbooks, analyzing information, formulating study guides, and being quizzed on my ability to recall the material. For certain things, I find them to be simple, and on the other hand, I can struggle to recall things that I may have previously just looked at. In cognition specifically, I manage to compile the data into an organized manner and devote time to rehearsing the information in the hopes that once the test is handed to me I can easily complete it.
Unfortunately, I found it to be more difficult than I assumed because despite the fact that I had heard the information and read over it, I could not, for the life of me, recall the information when I needed to most. Craik and Tulving’s level of processing theory is applicable to my study habits because according to their research, I failed to properly encode the given data and the grades I received on the exams proved that assumption. Somehow I can remember that the term ‘JPEG’ is an acronym for joint photographic exchange group, but struggle to bring the Godden and Baddley experiment to the forefront of my brain when I need to write a timed essay that can jeopardize my grade.
Conclusion
This theory is also applicable to other aspects of my life, not merely just an educational aspect. In my day-to-day interactions with my peers, professors, and coworkers, I am both relaying information and taking in information. At work, I might be suggesting a product to a customer and walking them through what cheese pairs best with a specific wine whereas at school I sit at my desk frantically jotting down what my professor asserts as important knowledge to remember. I now understand that I can more easily recall work products due to my familiarity with them, and that my attempts to retain school instruction are falling short due to my inability to find that depth when it comes to my level of processing. If I focus on the semantic aspects of what is being said rather than the structural and phonemic aspects only, I may find a newfound depth as proposed by Craik and Tulving and the predecessors after them.
References
Bugg, J. M., DeLosh, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Improving Students’ Study Habits by Demonstrating the Mnemonic Benefits of Semantic Processing. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 96–98.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
Eysenck, M. W. (1978). Levels of Processing: A Critique. British Journal of Psychology, 69(pt 2), 157.
Saegert, J. (1979). A Demonstration of Levels-Of-Processing Theory in Memory for Advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 82–84.