Running head: TITLE

Title
Amy Croysdill
Murdoch University
Word count:
TITLE

Abstract

Levels of processing may affect an individual’s ability to recall from memory. The present

study (N=105) examined whether the amount of meaning a word had to an individual

effected their ability to recall the words. All participants were each given a set of 30 yes or no

questions which were either scored as deep, shallow or self-referencing.

TITLE

Title

Levels of processing

As …(Canadian journal of psychology) . argued memory trace is not due to memory

encoding but a record of an individual's cognitive processes which include categorisation,

comprehension and discrimination.

The present study determined whether levels of processing effect memory recall of university

students. It was anticipated that depth of processing will affect recall, in particular semantic

and relevant involved words will have a higher level of recall in the relevant condition

compared to the physical condition. The second hypothesis being that self-reference effect

will conclude better recall in the relevant condition when compared to the semantic condition.
TITLE

Method

Participants

The 105 participants used in this study were all Murdoch University students enrolled in the

BSC201 unit and could be in any level of study. Participation to complete the study was

voluntary but highly encouraged by the unit coordinator with no incentives or requirements.

Materials

The 30 questions were created by the unit coordinator for BSC201 at Murdoch university.

The PowerPoint was comprised of 30 yes or no questions. Each question was either

connected to semantic processing which included words which were personal therefore

requiring deep processing, physical which revolved around questions asking if a certain letter

was present in a word and self-referencing which included statements about the individual.

Manipulating levels of processing

Procedure

The 105 participants received a PowerPoint including instructions on how to prepare fro the

questions which encouraged them to create a column of numbers from 1-30. The introduction

to the study also detailing the time management of the study where each question will appear

for 2 seconds while the word associated with the question available for 4 seconds.

wanted. The results of the questionnaire where then put into three categories which include

the three levels of processing, semantic, physical and self-referencing.

TITLE

Results

Analysis shows no significant differences between semantic and relevant while physical is

predominantly lower..

The mean difference scores between semantic, relevant and physical questions are presented

in table 1. The results indicate with an alpha level of …

A significant mean difference was found between semantic and relevant with physical scores

with semantic having a mean score of 4.28 and relevant having a mean score of 4.13 while

physical had a mean score of 1.54.

The results

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
relevan
semantic physical
t
Valid 105 105 105
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 4.276 4.124 1.562
Std.
1.904 1.796 1.447
Deviation
Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000
Maximum 9.000 9.000 8.000

Repeated Measures ANOVA

TITLE

Within Subjects Effects

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
RM Factor 1 488.387 2 244.194 97.876 < .001
Residual 518.946 208 2.495
Note. Type III Sum of Squares
Between Subjects Effects

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

411.28
Residual 104 3.955
3

Note. Type III Sum of Squares

Results for anova = F(2,208)=97.87,P=<.001

If they are significantly different

Contrasts
Simple Contrast - RM Factor 1

Comparison Estimate SE t p

Level 2 - Level 1 -0.152 0.218 -0.699 0.485

< .00
Level 3 - Level 1 -2.714 0.218 -12.451
1

Report contrasts

T=-0.69,p=.48