Outline and evaluate one alternative to the multi-store model of memory (e.g. working memory, levels of processing).
Outline and evaluate one alternative to the multi-store model of memory (e.g. working memory, levels of processing)
Craik and Lockhart (1972) advanced the levels of processing theory (LOP) as an alternative to the multi-store model. They argued that deeper levels of processing would greatly enhance the strength and durability of a memory trace and therefore its memorability. Thus if you process information “deeply” then it will be stored. Deep processing would, according to the researchers, occur due to greater depth of analysis, elaboration, organisation and distinctiveness. The researchers argued that shallow processing focuses on the superficial features of the information (e.g. whether a word is in upper or lower case) resulting in a fragile memory trace with the information unlikely to be stored for very long. The LOP model challenges the importance of rehearsal as being the only way in which STM may be transferred to LTM. Craik and
Lockhart point out that long-term memories are laid down every day without being rehearsed. Their levels of processing model suggests it is everyday information (with meaning or importance)
rather than repeated processing (repetition) which is the key to
LTM. While shallow processing focuses on the superficial features of the information and is unlikely to be remembered, deep
(semantic) processing focuses on the meaning of the information and is generally more likely to be remembered. The LOP is supported by some important research by Craik and
Tulving (1975). They showed how elaboration could lead to greater recall. Words used to fill in blanks in more complex sentences were twice as well recalled than those that fitted in to simple sentences. The greater meaning given by the added complexity enabled deeper processing. Further support for LOP comes from Mandler (1967) who showed that when sorting playing cards, participants who sorted their cards
into
Craik and Lockhart (1972) advanced the levels of processing theory (LOP) as an alternative to the multi-store model. They argued that deeper levels of processing would greatly enhance the strength and durability of a memory trace and therefore its memorability. Thus if you process information “deeply” then it will be stored. Deep processing would, according to the researchers, occur due to greater depth of analysis, elaboration, organisation and distinctiveness. The researchers argued that shallow processing focuses on the superficial features of the information (e.g. whether a word is in upper or lower case) resulting in a fragile memory trace with the information unlikely to be stored for very long. The LOP model challenges the importance of rehearsal as being the only way in which STM may be transferred to LTM. Craik and
Lockhart point out that long-term memories are laid down every day without being rehearsed. Their levels of processing model suggests it is everyday information (with meaning or importance)
rather than repeated processing (repetition) which is the key to
LTM. While shallow processing focuses on the superficial features of the information and is unlikely to be remembered, deep
(semantic) processing focuses on the meaning of the information and is generally more likely to be remembered. The LOP is supported by some important research by Craik and
Tulving (1975). They showed how elaboration could lead to greater recall. Words used to fill in blanks in more complex sentences were twice as well recalled than those that fitted in to simple sentences. The greater meaning given by the added complexity enabled deeper processing. Further support for LOP comes from Mandler (1967) who showed that when sorting playing cards, participants who sorted their cards
into