Studies In The Cognitive Approach - Levels Of Processing (Craik and Lockhart 1972)

AS and A Level Psychology

Studies In The Cognitive Approach

Levels Of Processing (Craik and Lockhart 1972)

When given a list of words to learn, we can do one of three things to allow us to recall them on a later occasion. We can simply try to learn the words usual a visual method of just looking at the words. We can also think of words that rhyme with the word that has to be learnt, this is the auditory method. Finally we can associate the words with other words e.g. car and drive, this is a semantic way to remember things.

Craik and Lockhart carried out the following study to investigate which form of memory gives the best recall.

Three groups of people were given a list of words to learn. Group one was told to remember the list simply by just looking at it. The second group was told to remember the list by trying to rhyme the words on the list with other words. The third group was told to remember the words with the use of semantic processing.

The semantic group gave the best recall, the auditory (the rhyming group) group gave the second best, and the visual group gave the worst recall.

Craik and Lockhart believed that the reason for these results is that visual is the lowest level of thought and that giving something meaning (semantic) is the deepest level of thought. They proved with their results that the deeper the thought on a particular piece of information the more likely you are to remember it.

Evaluation

If we say that the deeper the processing gives better recall, and prove it by ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The semantic group gave the best recall, the auditory (the rhyming group) group gave the second best, and the visual group gave the worst recall.

Craik and Lockhart believed that the reason for these results is that visual is the lowest level of thought and that giving something meaning (semantic) is the deepest level of thought. They proved with their results that the deeper the thought on a particular piece of information the more likely you are to remember it.

Evaluation

If we say that the deeper the processing gives better recall, and prove it by looking at a good recall, we are then using a circular argument and prove nothing.

Its not the only theory for memory, Atkinson and Shiffron proposed the dual-process model. This study supports the assumption of cognition, that information is processed. It also seems a fair claim to say that the more you concentrate on something the more likely you are to remember it, because it has got more of your attention. The multi store model backs it up, the rehearsal loop can be seen processing more deeply. Miller proposed chunking as a way to help you remember things, this can also be seen as a way of deeper processing.

Context Dependant Forgetting (Bouton et Al 1999)

Forgetting may occur due to a number of different reasons such as trace decay and interference. But this study focuses on the failure to retrieve, not the failure to store. This study shows that retrieval is better when the conditions and circumstances are the same to when the information was first introduced.

Bouton did some work to back up his idea on conditioning and memory. He conditioned a dog to make it drool at the ring of a bell. Normally a dog would drool at the sight of food. He rang the bell a few times each time food was present. After a few repetitions of this, the dog will drool at the ring of the bell. To extinguish the response to the bell, the food was brought in without the bell. The bell was then rung on its own and the dog did not drool. But when the food was brought back and the bell was rung whilst the food was present, the dog again drooled.

From this evidence Bouton et Al could then say that it’s not that we forget things, but we don’t recall them because the conditions aren’t correct.

Evaluation

Most of the research carried out by Bouton et Al was done on non-human animals and the findings were generalised to humans. The results do show a lot about how the non-human animals thinking works, you can argue that generalising it to humans is not acceptable as we are not non-human animals. The research that was carried out was done in the area of memory and the non-human animal research was carried out in the area of conditioning, so it could be said that these are different cognitive skills, so the two experiments do not back each other up. There are other experiments also carried out based on this theory by many psychologists, which back this up. But its not the only theory for forgetting there is trace decay and also interference.