Theme 2 – Learning and Retention
Neath & Surprenant (2003). Chapter 5.
Craik and Lockhart offered the first detailed view suggesting that the type of processing was more
important than the underlying theoretical structures. They made four key assumptions:
- They conceptualized memory as the result of a series of analyses, each at a deeper level than the
previous one, that are performed on the to-be-processed information. Level of processing is not a
discrete level, but a continuum. It goes from shallow processing (perceptual features, e.g. how
words sound) to deeper processing (meaning).
- They assumed that the deeper the level, the more durable the resulting memory. If you need to
remember something for a long time, you should focus on the meaning and not on how it sounds.
- They assumed that rehearsal can be relatively unimportant. Memory improvements are due to
deeper levels of analysis, not to repeating an item. This is only useful if it induces a deeper level
of processing. This is known as Type II/elaborative rehearsal, which will improve memory.
Type I/maintenance rehearsal won’t improve memory.
- Research will be most informative if the researcher has control over the processing. They should
use an incidental learning procedure: The subject is unaware that the material being processed
will be tested later on.
o The intent to learn isn’t necessarily an important variable in memory research.
In an experiment by Hyde and Jenkins, subjects heard 24 words and had
to recall as many as possible in a free recall task. One group knew they
had to remember as many words as possible and were tested (intentional),
whereas the other group had no idea about the recall test (incidental). The
most important findings were:
1. The deeper the level of processing, the more words were recalled
(in the incidental learning group).
2. Subjects in both groups (incidental pleasantness vs intentional
control) remembered the same amount of words, so the intention
to learn doesn’t make a difference. Other factors may be more
important than intent to remember (like deep processing).
3. There was very little difference in performance between the
groups given the same instruction (e.g. parts of speech).
Craik and Watkins also performed a study in which they found that Type I learning didn’t correlate with
the remembering of items. This suggests that the time something spends in the STM isn’t related to the
subsequent recall (against the modal model). Further research has generally replicated this finding. In
Table 5.1, two ways of accounting for basic memory phenomena is explained (modal model vs levels of
processing).
There is some criticism on the levels of processing view. The assumptions are circular; they point a good
memory to deeper levels of processing, but also say that deeper levels of processing lead to a better
memory. The question is, what came first? The levels of processing view mainly focuses on the way
information gets encoded but doesn’t explain much about retrieval.
1
Neath & Surprenant (2003). Chapter 5.
Craik and Lockhart offered the first detailed view suggesting that the type of processing was more
important than the underlying theoretical structures. They made four key assumptions:
- They conceptualized memory as the result of a series of analyses, each at a deeper level than the
previous one, that are performed on the to-be-processed information. Level of processing is not a
discrete level, but a continuum. It goes from shallow processing (perceptual features, e.g. how
words sound) to deeper processing (meaning).
- They assumed that the deeper the level, the more durable the resulting memory. If you need to
remember something for a long time, you should focus on the meaning and not on how it sounds.
- They assumed that rehearsal can be relatively unimportant. Memory improvements are due to
deeper levels of analysis, not to repeating an item. This is only useful if it induces a deeper level
of processing. This is known as Type II/elaborative rehearsal, which will improve memory.
Type I/maintenance rehearsal won’t improve memory.
- Research will be most informative if the researcher has control over the processing. They should
use an incidental learning procedure: The subject is unaware that the material being processed
will be tested later on.
o The intent to learn isn’t necessarily an important variable in memory research.
In an experiment by Hyde and Jenkins, subjects heard 24 words and had
to recall as many as possible in a free recall task. One group knew they
had to remember as many words as possible and were tested (intentional),
whereas the other group had no idea about the recall test (incidental). The
most important findings were:
1. The deeper the level of processing, the more words were recalled
(in the incidental learning group).
2. Subjects in both groups (incidental pleasantness vs intentional
control) remembered the same amount of words, so the intention
to learn doesn’t make a difference. Other factors may be more
important than intent to remember (like deep processing).
3. There was very little difference in performance between the
groups given the same instruction (e.g. parts of speech).
Craik and Watkins also performed a study in which they found that Type I learning didn’t correlate with
the remembering of items. This suggests that the time something spends in the STM isn’t related to the
subsequent recall (against the modal model). Further research has generally replicated this finding. In
Table 5.1, two ways of accounting for basic memory phenomena is explained (modal model vs levels of
processing).
There is some criticism on the levels of processing view. The assumptions are circular; they point a good
memory to deeper levels of processing, but also say that deeper levels of processing lead to a better
memory. The question is, what came first? The levels of processing view mainly focuses on the way
information gets encoded but doesn’t explain much about retrieval.
1
