Instead, we must encode information semantically, by relating it to other ideas and knowledge. This encodes the information on a deep level and is a more effective studying technique. The levels of processing effect is not only relevant to studying. We are asked to recall information daily, sometimes in a form as simple as remembering the name of someone we met.
Simply repeating their name could lead to embarrassing moments of forgetfulness, since repetition alone does not commit information to lasting memory. Although individually, we can use tactics that activate the levels of processing effect, often, how information is presented is not under our control. Formative years of our lives are spent learning in school and college, and without knowledge of the levels of processing effect, institutions may not be as effective as they could be in ensuring their students absorb the information into knowledge.
Although shallow encoding might retain information long enough for students to pass an exam, they are unlikely to remember that information years down the line, when they need it for a job. One of the skills educational institutions are supposed to teach us is how to effectively learn so that we are prepared to continue learning throughout our lives. Schools should therefore ensure that they are teaching their students the best possible ways of retaining information, which according to the levels of processing effect, is to encode information on a deep level.
There are multiple ways in which information can be encoded in our brains which will then affect our ability to recall it later. The levels of processing effect predicts that when information is encoded on a deep level, it is easier to remember than when it is encoded on a shallow level. That is because if it is processed on a deep level, it is more meaningful to us.
A shallow level of encoding occurs when we process information, like words, structurally, by the way they appear, or phonemically, by the way they sound. A deep level of encoding occurs when we process information semantically, by associating it with emotion, idea or previous knowledge. If memory recollection is affected by the way information is encoded, it is important that we focus on ways to improve how we encode information.
Knowing about the levels of processing effect can help us improve the way that we teach, learn and study. Awareness of the effect can therefore lead to stronger learning outcomes, which is useful both in school and work settings. The levels of processing effect demonstrates that if we associate new information with something meaningful, we are more likely to remember it. This knowledge can inform teachers or bosses that they should frame their teaching to be more specific and relevant to their students and employees.
Opportunity costs are what someone misses out on when they make one choice over an alternative. His teacher, Miss Maitland, sees that he is struggling, and knows that Raj is really passionate about cars.
After this explanation, Raj has encoded the term semantically by associating it to something that is meaningful to him. Since the levels of processing effect is a cognitive bias that can lead to desirable outcomes, we should try to activate it rather than avoid it.
For information to be remembered long-term, it should be encoded on a deep level, which can be achieved by encoding it semantically. As the example of remembering the order of taxa shows, one way to encode information semantically is by linking it with other pieces of information. Other ways of making information meaningful to us can include trying to explain it in our own words, researching topics by ourselves rather than just listening to teachers, or finding real-life examples of a theory instead of reading about it in a textbook.
Information is also better retained when we attach an emotion to it. For example, if we meet a boy named Ryan while we are swimming, we can try to attach their name to the happy feeling we felt while swimming. The levels of processing effect was first proposed as a model by Fergus Craik and Robert Lockhart in The multi-store model of memory suggested that memory functioned in a linear fashion, moving from sensory memory to short-term memory to long-term memory.
This model proposed that to move information from short-term memory to long-term memory, it had to be repeated. Craik and Lockhart believed that the multi-store model was insufficient for explaining how memory works.
One of the strengths of the levels of processing model is that it is dynamic, focusing on methods of handling incoming information rather than on interaction between theoretical storage mechanisms that passively hold information. Anzulewicz, Anna, et al. Craik, Fergus I. Dehn, Milton J. Hoboken: Wiley, Rose, Nathan S. By Dr. Saul McLeod , published 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. Structural processing appearance which is when we encode only the physical qualities of something.
Shallow processing only involves maintenance rehearsal repetition to help us hold something in the STM and leads to fairly short-term retention of information. 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. 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. Participants were then given a long list of words into which the original words had been mixed. They were asked to pick out the original words. 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. The above examples could all be used to revise psychology using semantic processing e. The logic for this standard correction procedure is that each subject might be expected to guess "yes" by chance about as of ten for correct items as they would for incorrect ones.
The subjects in the experiment were 30 adults members of the secretarial staff at a university in a south western metropolis. Fifteen subjects served in each group and approximately half were males.
The mean number of brand names correctly recalled and the mean number of brand names recognized corrected for guessing for the two types of questions for both subject groups are presented in Table 1.
As can be seen, about twice as many brand names for which deep processing questions were asked were recalled compared to those for which shallow processing questions were asked. The "groups" variable refers to the control procedure of reversing deep and shallow questions for the first and second half of the subjects. The deep processing question ads were also recognized substantially better. Table 2 presents the summary tables for analyses of variance of the two dependent variables.
The design was a 2 x 2 factorial with type of question as a repeated measures variable. Thus, for both recall and recognition, retention was superior for ads presented in the context of deep processing questions. While it cannot be claimed that the situation studied in the present experiment is precisely analogous to the experience of consumers viewing ads in the "real world", it can be said that there are elements in common.
When a researcher calls to ask what ads were seen last night on TV, it is likely that the level to which the interviewee related ads to personal experience will influence recallability.
In this context, it has been demonstrated in the present study that the recall and recognition of ads varies as a function of the type of questions asked and hence, the level of processing to which the ad was subjected. Of course, the advertiser who wishes to elicit deep processing by the consumer cannot ask questions which will cause brand names to be related to a person's personal experience.
However, ads can be designed in such a way that they elicit active participation by the viewer. That is, any ad which invites and effects the participation of the viewer by requiring him to supply some omitted aspect or to compare a brand with his personal experience or to predict the outcome of a hypothetical situation might be expected to require comparison of the brand name with previous knowledge.
The result may be that the brand name becomes an integral part of the viewer's knowledge and hence is available for future retrieval. Levels-of-processing theory places emphasis in the memory situation on the kind of processing that material receives rather than the number of exposures.
While such a distinction between quality and quantity of processing may come as no surprise to advertising strategists, there has been an emphasis on the use of associative theory to explain repetition effects in advertising e. Although it cannot be disputed that repetition is related to the likelihood that an ad will be remembered, it may be that repetition chiefly serves to provide multiple opportunities for observers to apply cognitive elaboration to the ad material, rather than to build up "habit strength" in accordance with classical associative theory.
It seems safe to assume that such cognitive theories as Craik and Lockhart's levels of processing will receive a great deal of attention in future attempts to explain the memory of advertisements.
Craik, and R. Craik, and E.
0コメント