Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

Running head: Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

Memory of Processing Performance under differing conditions

Dylan Gration
The University of Western Australia
 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

Abstract

The study recites empirical evidence on levels of processing as well as examining the

difference between phonemic and semantic encoding, and the consequent effect this has

memory recall in general. It also looks at the general population’s accuracy of performance

estimation on memory recall tasks, and how most people in general will overestimate their

performance and actual abilities. The greater recall ability when information is encoding

via a semantic level of processing is shown in experiment’s results as well as the large

difference between estimated recall performance and actual recall performance. Implications

of research are mentioned in discussion.

 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

Levels of Processing Performance under differing conditions

The recall of memory has been of keen interest for decades now among psychological

scholars, in particular the actual type of processing one engages in when recalling such

memories. Consequently, research has shown that there are levels of processing one engages

in, and this is particularly evident in short-term memory. The degree to which one is able to

recall certain memory has seen to have been established by the level of processing in which

information is encoded, rather than memory retrieval (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). This level

of processing ranges from superficial levels of encoding to far deeper levels of encoding and

Craik (2002) mentions this notion of encoding specificity, in particular the phonemics versus

semantics.

This research has shown that there is a greater potential for retrieval with deeper encoding,

and that a greater level of memory recall is also associated with a retrieval environment,

such as specific retrieval cues being present (Craik, 2002). Such deep encoding traces are

considered even more memorable if there is an equation of both encoding and retrieval at

a semantic level, and Craik (2002) states that Morris et al. data showed this combination

yielded a substantially higher level of memory recognition than a phonemic combination.

It is important to note that this level of processing however is not simply a set of levels

independently operating modules, rather Craik (2002) considers there to be a flexible

hierarchy in which the beginning of sensory encoding is of a sequential nature, with a transfer

of information from superficial to deeper, semantic levels of encoding.

Levels of processing are also attributed to recall performance among the general population.

While Craik has found that “cued recall was better when the target items had been presented

in a category judgment than when the targets had involved rhyme judgments” (Lewandowsky

& Hockley, 1987), most of the population seem to be quite unaware of the levels of

processing and how this in turn may effect their recall performance. This can be seen in
 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

the relationship of memory self-efficacy with memory task predictions, explored by Shaw

and Craik in 1989. In their experiment on performance prediction in memory tasks among

adults, the results exemplified the fact that the subjects’ predictions of their performance

were “insensitive to experimental manipulations known to affect cued recall performance”,

even after being informed of the manipulations before the task began.

Hertzog and Dixon found other factors that generally affect one’s estimate of their

performance in memory tasks such as task appraisal, memory monitoring and again, memory

self-efficacy.

My study considers theoretical implications of the level of processing and global accuracy

predictions in memory, in light of empirical evidence stating that many are not necessarily

affected by foreclosed manipulations on experiments. While studies by Hertzog, Dixon and

Hultsch, Butterfield et. Al plus Lovelace and Marsh are generally consistent in showing a

lack of age differences when predicting accuracy and in relation to memory self-efficacy.

My study instead aims to look at the performance predictions and actual performance

when participants are explicitly foreclosed of the type of encoding beforehand, which in

due relation affects the level of processing to be used by the participant. The study aims to

also discover where there are measurable differences between the level of recall between

phonemic and semantic encoding and if performance recall differs between the two types of

encoding, it also seeks to add to existing research that people generally overestimate their

performance.

I hypothesized that deeper levels of processing (and more elaboration when encoding) will

result in greater recall of to-be-remembered items when conducting the experiment. As such

I predicted that those participants in the semantic group will have better actual recall than

those in the phonemic group. I also hypothesized that most people won’t realize the impact

that levels of processing has on their recall performance and predicted that their will be
 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

no substantial difference in the estimates of their recall performance for the two differing

conditions. I lastly hypothesized that people usually overestimate their actual abilities of

memory recall and furthermore predicted that if people overestimate their memory capacity

in the same way they overestimate performance in other areas, then I expect estimates of

recall performance will be higher than actual recall performance among participants.

Method

For my study, the participants involved were the whole first year cohort of Psychology

students studying at UWA, which numbered 992 participants. No account was taken of age

or gender, but most are assumed to fall within the 17-21 years of age bracket and all are

assumed to be competent in English. The participants were required to participate in the

experiment as a requirement of their PSYC1101 course. The materials used in the experiment

firstly required a computer as part of the task. The task was a program for the computer,

and was structured with 26 word pairs of stimuli. The stimuli in turn were written in blue

and were of size 14 font in Times New Roman. These stimuli were placed in the center of a

white background for the program. The actual procedure of the experiment was as follows.

Participants were first randomly allocated to phonemic or semantic conditions, though

these were appeared as “rhyming” and “category” on their computer screens. They were

then directed to the website address of the task on their computers where they were first

required to enter their name, then select the category that they had been randomly assigned to

previously from on screen.

The first phase of experiment also included six practice trials of stimuli, where they would

be required to state whether the two words of the ‘same’ category or ‘different’, they would

be told whether they were right or wrong after each answer and this section had a 30 second

time limit for responses to be made. After the practice, the first phase, learning phase, began
 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

with the 26 word pairs appearing on screen again needing to be stated whether they were

same or different, and required responses to be made within 30 seconds.

The second phase, or recall phase, of the experiment then asked participants to now

remember a corresponding word of each 26 stimuli pair as one had been taken away, while

participants were given as long as they’d like to respond but were required to enter at least

one word. If participants could not recall the exact spelling of a word, the program would

accept approximate spelling. After completing this phase, participants were finally presented

with their individual results of what they scored percentage wise for both phase one and two,

and were then required as well as reminded to save their data.

Results

Table 1

Means (SD) for the Phonemic and Semantic conditions on memory recall performance

Phonemics Semantics

Estimated Recall 53.11 (20.76) 51.21 (20)

Actual Recall 19.02 (15.83) 29.88 (19.52)

Table 1’s mean for estimated recall are both very similar, while the actual recall presents

quite a large difference by more than 10% in comparison to the 2% difference in estimated

recall. Standard deviations are quite similar. The Cohen’s D was .61 for the semantic

condition, while .09 for phonemic condition.

Table 2

Means and SD for both condition’s memory recall performance

Mean SD

Estimated Recall 52.2 20.40

Actual Recall 24.21 18.49

 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

The mean of the estimated and actual recall are at almost a 30% difference, while the

standard deviation is relatively similar by about 2%. The Cohen’s d was calculated at 1.44 for

the whole sample.

Discussion

The results of table 1 explicitly show that the semantic group recalled more word pairs than

in comparison to the phonemic group. This was quite a substantial difference between the

performances of the two groups as represented by the Cohen’s d figure of .61. This confirms

the hypothesis and adds to previous research (Craik, 2002) that deeper levels of processing do

in fact allow for greater recall, at least in short term memory.

The results of table 1 also confirm that there was no major difference between the conditions

on the estimated amount of word pairs participants believed they’d recall, even though

semantic encoding allows for greater recall. The Cohen’s d was .09 representing no

meaningful difference whatsoever between the two groups and supports they hypothesis, and

that most people are unaware of levels of processing.

Table 2 again confirms the experiment’s hypothesis in that people generally overestimate

their actual abilities. There was a substantial 28% difference between people thought they

could recall and what actually could recall. This supports other empirical evidence focusing

on other predictions of performance such as that of Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger and Kruger

who asked sophomore college students to predict how well they’d do on their exam.

This experiment could be improved by allowing for a greater sample size of participants, and

possibly by the recording of ages to record memory recall performance differences between

young and older adults. This study I believe adds to existing empirical evidence (Chaik,

2002; Craik & Lockhart, 1972) that semantic encoding allows for greater memory recall.
 Memory of Processing Performance under Differing Conditions

References

Craik, F.I.M. (2002) Levels of processing:past, present...and future?, Memory, 10 (5/6) pp

305-318

Craik & Tulving (1975), Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in episodic
Processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3) pp. 268-294

Hertzog, Dixon & Hultsch (1990), Relationships between Metamemory, Memory Predictions,
and Memory Task Performance in Adults, Psychology & Aging, 5(2) pp215-227

Lewandsky & Hockley (1987)