Levels of Processing and Relativity of Words Effects on Memory Performance Abstract The goal of the present experiment was to investigate if an individual uses self-referent encoding and structural encoding which of the two encoded styles produces higher recall performance. The measure was based on recall performance of three groups: original related, original non-related, and new items.

The results reported were conducted to evaluate ones way of individual processing and the effect of performance and also the words themselves on individual performance. Results demonstrated words related to the self regardless of level of processing produced high performance in the recognition task. Suggestions are discussed for further research and theory on self-referent encoding, and semantic memory. Key Words: college students, levels of processing, words, self-reference

Encoding Styles: Recognition performance on related vs. unrelated words Levels of processing in memory, proposed first by Craik & Lockharts (1972) framework suggests that information is transferred easily to the long-term memory if it is considered, understood and related to previous memories to grow meaning than to be just practiced. The amount of consideration of information was given the term depth of processing, where the deeper the information is processed, the longer the memory sketch would last.

They introduced three examples of levels which information could be processed; structural this is shallow processing, looking at what the composition of the word appears as, phonetic processing by the sound of the word and finally, semantic, deep processing, considering the meaning of the word. In line with past research (Craik & Lockart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975), Rogers et al. found that making a semantic judgment led to better recall than did making judgments about either surface or phonetic features.

Judging a word in relation to self, however, produced the best recall of all. Also supported by Morris et al. (1977) experiment on phonemically and semantically encoding words and his findings on recognition showed higher scores on semantic encoding than phonemic encoding, which was in line with the levels-of-processing paradigm (Craik & Tulving, 1975) (Roediger, Gallo, Geraci 2002) Rogers al. (1977) too hypothesized that self-reference signifies an extremely rich and deep level of encoding.

Often the easiest way to find meaning of an object, experience and connect is to easily relate it to ones self, thus leading us to research on semantic deep processing in accordance to self and its affects on memory recall. Self-reference effect was related to as an addition of levels of processing. Self-reference encoding was theorized as a process in which the information is stored in memory with reference to the self. In simple terms, the individual has a connection with the information and therefore the information is orientated with ones feelings, beliefs, standards, traits, and status and processed in that way.

It becomes semantic. Impact of self-referent encoding (Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker, 1977) stated that the fundamental feature of self-reference is that the self acts as a backdrop for which incoming date can be interpreted and coded, thus the interaction between previous experience for the individual and the incoming stimuli. This interaction between new input and past understanding suggested as being crucial in self-reference goes along too with developmental and cognitive literature for schemas. Bartlett, 1935; Posner & Keele, 1968). Craik, and Tulving conducted a wonderful depth of processing study in 1975 where many experiments were done within the levels of processing framework in an effort to achieve a better depiction of depth of processing and how it is that deeper semantic analysis aids superior memory performance. As deeply supported by research Structural encoding on the other hand is an encoding strategy in which the individual processes the information in terms of arrangement present.

Research supports that self- and close other- referencing similarly enhance general (item) and specific (detail) recognition (Hammi, Serbun, Gutchess 2011). The self-reference effect has been found to assist stronger memory outlines in individual’s abilities to remember words such as adjectives (Gutchess, Kensinger, Yoon, & chatcer 2007). The purpose of this experiment of which is in short a replication of Roger, Kuiper, and Kirker’s (1977) self-referent encoding, is an attempt to support the characterization of depth of processing and how it is that deeper semantic analysis yields superior memory performance.

Though most data has proven that semantic encoding and stimuli in accordance to self produce higher recall performance may the structural presentation of the word give higher performance? This study was designed to find if the self related words produce high recall scores, regardless to the levels of processing (deep and shallow). The experiment conducted was a 2×2 paired design to test 2 independent variables level of processing on two levels, (deep vs. self), and words, (related, non-related).

We reasoned that there would be a definite relation to recall when the words were related to the self and encoded in the deep level of processing. Method Participants Participants included students of the Cognitive Experimental Psychology Class at Deree College in Athens, Greece 2011 who were directed to take part in the study. The participants were 14 psychology students N=14; 5 males and 9 females, the age range was 18-25. Materials and Procedure. This research took place in the Psychology student experimental labs of the American College of Greece in a controlled setting.

A pre-made assessment adapted from E-prime psychology tool software was used. Proceeding informed consent the participants were consecutively presented a familiar set of 20 words out of the 24 self-related and the 12 unrelated words. It is important to know the programming programs order of presentation of the 20 words was completely random for each participant. They were shown 10 words from each item. Within each word presented there than was two levels of processing determined (self-referent) deep processing and (structural) shallow processing).

When each word was revealed participants were instructed to answer yes or no to one of the following questions in regards to structural (shallow) encoding (S-SP) and self-referent (deep) encoding (S-DP). S-SP defined as “Does this word contain any double letters? ” and S-DP defined by “Does this word describe you? ” Half of the words appeared on a random basis with each question, half of the words had an “e” in them, and half of the words were less socially desirable. Therefore no matter which word is presented with which questions an equal number of yes and no response was robable. Since this experiment was designed to test long-term memory over short-term there was a short delay period where participants were asked to perform two distracting tasks, first to place a series of 10 numbers in numerical order and second, to place a set of 10 letters in alphabetical order. After the delay period, participants were then given a recognition test. They were asked, “Do you recognize this word” and to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The recognition test included 20 target words, and 20 distracter words (new items); the items were consecutively presented in random order.

Finally, the participants were debriefed accordingly. Results A two-way within group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of relativity of words and level of processing on recognition. The interaction effect between levels of processing and relativity of words was not statistically significant F (1, 13) = . 95, p = . 34. The main effect of levels of processing did not reach statistical significance, F (1, 13) = 1. 645, p = . 222. There was though a statistically significant effect for relativity of words F (1, 13) = 34. 8, p= . 0; and the effect size was extremely large (partial eta. squared = . 72). Discussion The present study investigated the interaction of deep and shallow processing in accordance with relativity of words and performance scores. Our primary goal was to examine whether the words structure at encoding or the benefit of word relativity to self at encoding differentially impacted to higher performance. And whether the interaction of processing in relation to the relativity was significant.

Our findings indicate that the mnemonic benefits of self-referent processing indeed do enhance performance relative to a more typical type of processing. This data as shown in Table 1, suggests that the actual “level of processing” (Craik & Lockhart 1972), does not make a difference when it comes to learning a set of words, since both shallow and deep processing had high performance rates in terms of word relativity. Though this research design was strong there were some confounding variable that need to be stated. There was no random selection, the tests were self aced, word lengths were different, it was a given that the definition of each word was understood, and all were from a specific related group. To fix these confounding there could have been a constant presentation rate of 3 or 5 second and a pilot could be conducted to figure out what amount of time should have been appropriate. To take out another confounding word length could have been equal such as all 5 letter words etc. To further results and have more significant data this same design should be tested on a greater number of participants. Many questions can be raised from this research.

Such as the value of this study lies in showing the potential importance of self-reference in the area of memory and in directing other ways to promising new avenues of self-reference research on other processing levels, and encoding strategies. Most importantly further research concerns in the generality of self-reference effect. Could self-referencing enhance all memory or just material clearly associated with the self. Further research could test other types of related words and different ways of presenting the structure in regards to the depths of processing and self-reference.

The gender effect on self-referencing and performance should also be taken into account. A greater question that was stated previously about time also constitutes as a weakness in the depth of processing it could tend to mean more time spent processing; it might be that it is the length of time spent processing which affects the memory, not the depth of processing. There may be more effort involved in “deeper” processing and the greater attempt might be the reason for the better recall. Deep” than is not well defined by Craik and Lockhart, it could be time spent processing, effort involved, therefore further research needs to text time in regards to self-reference effect. Furthermore finding ways to test Piaget’s cognitive stages in regards to children at the according stages. Such as the concrete stage when accommodation of schemas increase and the child develops an ability to think abstractly and to make rational judgments about concrete or observable phenomena, which in the past he needed to manipulate physically to understand.

And the formal stage, in adolescence where cognition reaches its final form and the adolescent is in the stage of development in which the self, is being fully identified and investigated when they no longer requires concrete objects to make rational judgments. Therefore testing these two developmental stages in regards to self-referencing effect, and their levels of processing could aid and be applied to educational programs. In conclusion, it is suggested the idea of “levels of processing” still provides a useful framework, yet self-referencing does not have an effect in regards to its processing level.

Either way self-relation though does have high performance rates and than supports it as a great way of encoding in regards to memory efficiency. I hope furthering this research to time, and neuroscience to really see the effects of what is happening neurologically, since today we have such amazing technology will high advance a deeper understanding, to how we remember, why we remember, and how much we really relate to the self. The self has infinite abilities in regards to memorize. Lets innovate, theorize, and back it up. References

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bower, G. H. , & Gilligan, S. G. (1979). Remembering information related to one’s self. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 420-432. Craik, F. I. M. , & Tulving, E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 268-294. Hammi, S. J. S, & Gutchess, A. H. (2011). Self-Referencing Enhances Memory Specificity With Age, Psychology and Aging, 26, 636-646. Rogers, T.

B. , Kuiper, N. A. , & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model of the self as an aspect of the human information processing system. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds. ), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 193-214). Symons, C. S. , & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371-394 Craik, F. I. M, & Lockhart, R.

S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-68 Table 1. 1 Descriptives Mean Recognition Scores Across Conditions| | | Level of Processing| | | | Deep| Shallow| Word Relativity| M| SD| M| SD| Related| 0. 9786| 0. 05789| 0. 9429| 0. 27675| Non-Related| 0. 7714| 0. 21989| 0. 6593| 0. 27675| Table 2. 2 Inferentials Two-Way Within Groups ANOVA Across All Conditions| | Source| df| F| p| | | | | Level of Processing| (1,13)| 1. 645| 0. 222| Word Relativity| (1,13)| 34. 87| 0| Level of Processing*Word Relativity| (1,13)| 0. 95| 0. 348| Graph Figure Appendix C Book Course Study Research Work Time Class Instructor Project Exam Deadline College Dig Fix Make Cook Sing Drive Repair Medication Protection Pilot Serve Assist Appendix D Rabbit Uncle Knee Duck Picnic Grill Earlobe Dog House Mother Bass Radio Appendix E Book Course Study Research Work Time Class Instructor Project Exam Deadline College Dig Fix Make Cook Sing Drive Repair Medication Protection Pilot Serve Assist Rabbit Uncle Knee Duck Picnic

Grill Earlobe Dog House Mother Bass Radio Appendix F Word selection A pilot study of 10 participants was conducted in order for the related and unrelated words to be ecologically valid. The words used in the actual experimental design (of 13 in total participants) were the ones chosen by all 10 participants of the pilot study as being related or unrelated with the student context. The words were used in a random manner, so every participant viewed both related and unrelated words under deep as well as shallow processing manner.