Depth of processing psychology example

Levels of Processing

By Dr. Saul McLeod, published 2007

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.” (1973, p. 48)

Unlike the multi-store model it is a non-structured approach. The basic idea is that memory is really 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.

We can process information in 3 ways:

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

3. Semantic processing, which happens when we encode the meaning of a word and relate it to similar words with similar meaning.

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.

Key Study: Craik and Tulving (1975)

Aim

To investigate how deep and shallow processing affects memory recall.

Method

Participants were presented with a series of 60 words about which they had to answer one of three questions. Some questions required the participants to process the word in a deep way (e.g. semantic) and others in a shallow way (e.g. structural and phonemic). For example:

Structural / visual processing: ‘Is the word in capital letters or small letters?
Phonemic / auditory processing: ‘Does the word rhyme with . . .?’
Semantic processing: ‘Does the word go in this sentence . . . . ?

Participants were then given a long list of 180 words into which the original words had been mixed. They were asked to pick out the original words.

Results

Participants recalled more words that were semantically processed compared to phonemically and visually processed words.

Conclusion

Semantically processed words involve elaboration rehearsal and deep processing which results in more accurate recall. Phonemic and visually processed words involve shallow processing and less accurate recall.

Real Life Applications

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.

• Reworking – putting information in your own words or talking about it with someone else.

• Method of loci – when trying to remember a list of items, linking each with a familiar place or route.

• 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.

Consequently more information will be remembered (and recalled) and better exam results should be achieved.

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 recall of information 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 superiourity 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 the way in which elaboration, which requires deeper processing of information, can aid memory.

Weaknesses

Despite these strengths, there are a number of criticisms of the levels of processing theory:

• It does not explain how the deeper processing results in better memories.

• Deeper processing takes more effort than shallow processing and it could be this, rather than the depth of processing that makes it more likely people will remember something.

• The concept of depth is vague and cannot be observed. Therefore, it cannot be objectively measured.

Eysenck (1990) claims that the levels of processing theory describes rather than explains. Craik and Lockhart (1972) argued that deep processing leads to better long-term memory than shallow processing. However, they failed to provide a detailed account of why deep processing is so effective.

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.

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 levels 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.

How to reference this article:

McLeod, S. A. (2007, December 14). Levels of processing. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html

APA Style References

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C.D., & Stein, B.S.(1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik(Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp.331–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesInc.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 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.

Eysenck, M. W. & Keane, M. T. (1990). Cognitive psychology: a student’s handbook, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd., Hove, UK.

How to reference this article:

McLeod, S. A. (2007, December 14). Levels of processing. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html

Home

About Us

Advertise

Simply Psychology’s content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Have you ever sat down to study for a test only to find yourself reading the same paragraph over, and over?

Or have you ever read a chapter in a text book only to realize after you were done that you didn’t understand the information any better?

When we try to learn something new, we can approach the material in different ways. Some of our approaches are fairly shallow, like reading and re-reading. They don’t do much to help us understand or remember information long-term.

Other study strategies give a lot of support to our learning. They help us get past rote regurgitation, and fully assimilate new information. They nudge us to engage in deep processing.

What is Deep Processing?

Deep processing is a way of learning in which you try to make the information meaningful to yourself. For example, you might try to figure out how a lesson on animal biology fits into what you already know about your dog (or cat).

Other examples of deep processing include: organizing your notes around common themes, generating questions for review, creating a concept map of ideas studied, and paying attention to key distinctions.

On the other hand, surface-level strategies are about memorizing information as presented, with little thought of your own.

For example, you might write your class notes using the exact words from your teacher’s slides. And then memorize a few key terms by repeating them over and over. When you use surface-level strategies like these, the information will quickly fade from memory.

Deep Processing Strategies You Can Try

Here are four ways to process information deeply (and learn it forever):

Elaborate on the information
Make distinctions
Apply it to your life
Explore it further

Elaborate the information

The idea behind the elaboration technique is to make meaningful associations between the concepts you’ve studied.

When you are given new information, begin by asking yourself how this relates to what you already know. This creates pathways where the new information can “live” in your brain.

For example, if you are learning how to write a persuasive essay, you may want to recall what you already know about writing a narrative essay. Or, you might think back to the advice your dad gave you about how to sell more t-shirts for your fundraiser.

Make distinctions

The point here is to try to make a clear contrast between other concepts and the concepts you are studying.

You put the information side-by-side and ask yourself what the key differences are?

When reading a Shakespeare sonnet, for example, you compare and contrast this type of poetry with a lyric, haiku or free-verse.

Apply it

Yep, you guessed it – here, you try using the information in real life. For instance, if you are studying human anatomy, try to name the bones you use when you brush your teeth or ride a bike.

You can make even a small start with application, just by asking yourself how you could use the concept in your life.

For example, suppose you are studying percentages in math class. You might think about how you can use them to understand the interest you’d earn by putting your money in a personal savings account.

Explore it

Finally, you can go beyond what’s presented in class and explore the information on your own. This can help you make the most of each of the strategies above.

For example, if you are studying the American Revolution, you may want to read about what life was like for the typical person in the late 18th century. Doing so could help make it easier to relate to, and elaborate on the events described in your dry textbook.

Who Uses Deep Processing?

Does anyone really study this way, except when teachers make them? What does it take to dive deep into the process of learning and study?

Susan Bobbitt Nolen of Arizona State University addressed these questions in a study of middle school students. Her paper, called, “Reasons for Studying: Motivational Orientations and Study Strategies,” was published in the journal, Cognition & Instruction.

She found that a number of students used deep processing strategies, without being told to. Also, using the strategies wasn’t related to natural ability. Instead, two key factors were related to their use:

Setting a goal to really understand the material and learn something new.
Knowing some deep processing strategies that help you learn and remember.

That is, students who embraced an interest in learning, and had tools to go deep in their understanding used study strategies all on their own.

Build Your Skills and Spark Your Interest

Like any new skills, the successful implementation of study strategies takes conscientious effort and practice over time. But, you can do it.

Once you are equipped with deep processing strategies, you’ll start to find that you tend to use them almost subconsciously when faced with new information or a new task.

When you fully adopt these skills, you will be shocked at how readily you can learn. And how much more fun learning becomes.

Image Credit: Photoshop_Addict

References

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 269-287.