Levels of Processing Memory Model (LoP) http://ibguides.com/psychology/notes/evaluate-two-models-or-theories-of-one-cognitive-process-with-reference-to-research-studies Source:

Remember a few key terms.. Encoding refers to the active process of putting stimulus information into a form that can be used by our memory system. It requires you to form mental representations of information from the external world.  Semantic Encoding – encoding information through its ‘meaning’  Acoustic Encoding – encoding information according to its ‘sound’  Visual Encoding – encoding information through its ‘visual’ aspects  Storage refers to the process of maintaining information in memory. It requires short and long term changes in the structure of your brain.  Retrieval is the active processes of locating and using information (remembering). 

What is the LoP model? Proposed by Craik & Lockhart (1972) LOP predicts that how deeply people process information determines how well it is stored in memory Deeper, meaningful processing creates stronger, longer-lasting memory traces. Shallow processing leads to weaker memory traces It states that memory is a by-product of processing information: Maintenance rehearsal (repetition to hold information in STM) is shallow processing and leads to short-term retention of information. As opposed to argument of MSM Elaboration rehearsal (meaningful analysis (e.g. images, thinking, associations etc.) of information) leads to better recall.

Three Levels: Structural (shallow) encode the physical qualities/appearance  Phonological (intermediate) encode sound/auditory Semantic (deep) encode meaning and associate it with existing knowledge

Supporting Research: Hyde and Jenkins, 1973 Aim:  ...’investigating’ whether people could remember without intentionally trying to, and whether deeper processing leads to better recall  Procedure:  Participants were presented with auditory lists of 24 words  Different groups of participants were asked to perform one of the following tasks requiring different levels of processing  rating words for pleasantness  estimate frequency with which each word is used in the English language  detect occurrence of letters ‘e' and 'g' in any of the words  decide part of speech appropriate to each word (e.g. noun, adjective)  decide whether words fitted into a particular sentence frame  Half participants were told in advance that they would be asked to recall words (intentional learning group)  Other half were not (incidental learning group)  Results:  Minimal differences in the number of words correctly recalled between the intentional and incidental learning groups.   Recall was significantly better for words analysed semantically (e.g. rated for pleasantness) than words which had been rated more superficially (e.g. detecting 'e' and 'g')  Conclusion:  Maintenance rehearsal is not necessary for learning. 

Evaluation Strengths Laboratory experiment Limitations strict control over variables  able to determine a cause-effect relationship between  Limitations  Lacks ecological validity Task is unrealistic; does not reflect daily activity participants would do Why is it important: supports the LOP theory because it shows that: semantic processing is deeper than structural and leads to better memory intention is unnecessary for retention supports Craik and Lockhart's belief that retention is a by-product of processing

More Supporting Research: Craik and Tulving, 1975 Aim: “To investigate how deep and shallow processing affects memory recall” Method: Participants presented with a series of 60 words about which they had to answer one of three questions, requiring different depths of processing. 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. Conclusion: Semantically processed words involve deep processing which results in more accurate recall.

Evaluation Strengths Laboratory experiment strict control over variables  able to determine a cause-effect relationship between  Weaknesses  Laboratory experiment  Lacks ecological validity Task is unrealistic; does not reflect daily activity participants would do Why it’s important: The experimental method was used in this study because the researchers wanted to find a cause- effect relationship between the level of processing and memory recall. This would not be able to be done using other research methods such as surveys or interviews.

Strengths of LoP Overcomes criticisms of the Multistore Model as being too simple methods of remembering. LOP was very influential when first proposed. It changed the direction of research and stimulated further research into memory Accounts for why some things are remembered better and for longer than others. LOP theory is useful in daily life as it shows how elaboration, which requires deeper processing, leads to better memory. It helps to understand processes at learning stage. Improvements on Multi-store model of memory: Does not make strict distinction between STM & LTM Does not regard LTM as simple storage unit, rather a complex processing system  Encoding is not simple and straightforward improvement on the MSM's account of transfer from STM tLTM Focuses on mental processes rather than structures Much research and evidence supporting the LOP theory's idea that deep processing aids memory.

Limitations of LoP Lacks ecological validity  all the evidence based on laboratory experiments LOP theory focuses on the processes rather than structures of memory. Evidence (e.g. Clive Wearing, KF) supports memory structures of STM and LTM stores proposed by MSM. Major limitation-difficult to define “deep” processing It is vague and cannot be observed, making it hard to measure objectively Baddeley (1990) – cannot independently assess depth Circular definition deeply processed information will be remembered better, but the measure of depth is how well information is remembered. LOP theory is descriptive rather than explanatory. Though later research has attempted to explain how and why deep processing is effective in aiding memory, the original theory did not provide a detailed explanation of this (Eysenck and Keane, 1995). Ordering of memory of LOP (semantic better than phonological better than structural) is not always supported by research. Several studies have shown that deeper processing does not guarantee better memory. Participants usually spend more time and effort on the tasks requiring deeper processing.  Type of processing, amount of effort and length of processing time are often confounding  It is difficult to know that depth of processing alone influences memory  Better memory may be due to more time or effort spent on processing; not deeper processing.  Like the MSM, LOP theory is too simplistic; research indicates that memory is more complex and varied than depth and elaboration.