(Craik & Tulving, ; Hyde & Jenkins, ; Lockhart, Graik, & Jacoby, ). Elaborative processing is distractors (Coltheart, ; Elias & Perfetti, ). The researches done by Hyde and Jenkins () and Craik and Elias and Perfetti () performed a study using the same technique. It involved a rhyming . Key Study Elias and Perfetti () looked at levels of processing, specifically phonetic and semantic processing. This study will recreate this key study. The aim.
|Published (Last):||25 August 2008|
|PDF File Size:||3.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Documents Flashcards Grammar checker. Introduction Aim To what extent does semantic processing lead to greater recall of words compared to phonetic processing?
Introduction Aim To what extent does semantic processing lead to
Background leias The cognitive level of processing, identified by Craik and Lockhartis an example of information processing. It is focused on how information is processed perfteti than information being put into different memory stores. There are three levels of processing: Shallow processing is when the information is looked at which is the worst way.
Phonetic processing is when a rhyme is made out of the information processed, giving the individual better recall. Semantic processing leads to the best recall as personal meaning is given. Study 1 Hyde and Jenkins wanted to find whether rating words for pleasantness led to better recall.
They found best-rated words had best recall whereas words that were rated least pleasant led to worst recall. This is because the best rated words involved semantic processing.
Study 2 Craik and Tulving wanted to find out whether deep and shallow processing affected memory. They 19973 semantically processed were better recalled than phonetically processed and visually perfteti words.
This is because semantically processed words required deep processing while phonetically processed and visually processed words required shallow processing. Study 3 Mandler wanted to find out whether categorizing words would lead to better recall.
He found that participants who categorized words had better recall than participants who just read words. This shows organizing information may make it memorable, showing semantic processing leads to better recall.
Key Study Elias and Perfetti looked at levels of processing, specifically phonetic and semantic processing. This study will recreate this key study.
Introduction Aim To what extent does semantic processing lead to
The aim of this study was to look into phonetic and semantic memory encoding. This was a lab experiment and participants were asked to carry out different tasks such as coming up with a rhyming word or a synonym of the word on the list. As there is a perfwtti task, it involves phonetic processing and the semantic task involves semantic coding which would be a deep level of processing. However, participants were not told they had to recall the words, which uses the incidental learning technique.
The incidental learning technique is when the participant is not aware they have to learn. From this experiment, Elias and Perfetti used this as participants were not aware they had to recollect the words after they performed the two perfettl. They found that participants recalled more words they had to find a synonym for than to find a rhyme for which suggests that deeper levels of processing leads to improved recall. This study was chosen because the results offer a greater insight into the study as the results are from an international perspective, due to the participants being international students.
Participants performing a semantic task will recall significantly more words in an unanticipated recall test than participants required to perform a phonetically processed task.
This is a one-tailed hypothesis as studies from the past such as Hyde and Jenkinshave had the same results showing semantically encoded words had deep processing and led to better recall, compared to phonetically encoded words. There will be no significant difference in words being recalled by participants that have used the different levels of processing: If this happens, it is due to chance.
Method Design This was a lab experiment, and participants made up an independent measures design. A lab experiment allows variables to be controlled so the cause and effect relationship can be examined successfully. An independent measures design has been used so demand characteristics are not created. There were two experimental conditions: No control group was used. Independent variable The task the participant performs, which would be a phonetically processed task or a semantically processed task.
The participants would recall the words based on their task. One group of participants would be asked to create rhymes while the other group will be asked to create synonyms for the words. Dependent variable The total number of words that participants were able to recall from the word list of 30 words. Controlled variables The same 30 words were used for both groups and had five minutes to write down all the words they could recall.
The same set of standardized instructions were also told to all participants. Ethics The real purpose of the experiment was not exposed until the end to avoid demand characteristics shown by participants.
Participants were required to sign a consent form Appendix A to list their rights in the experiment but not informed consent. This controls demand characteristics from participants, as they do not know the true purpose of the experiment. Also, participants were verbally told they had a right to withdraw and the results would be confidential as no names were used, just a code. At the end of the experiment, participants were verbally debriefed of the aim and purpose of the experiment Appendix F.
Participants Participants were students from an international school in Hong Kong aged 17 to 18 from years 12 to Out of the 30 students that were sampled, 17 were 197 and 13 were males. Opportunity sampling was used as it was more convenient to gather the participants and can be gathered within a short amount of time. Participants were divided into two groups through random selection, by putting the first 15 chosen participants in the first condition and the last 15 chosen participants in the other condition.
The target population was year old students at international schools in Hong Kong who were bilingual. Apparatus 30 consent forms Appendix A Stopwatch 30 response sheets for participants Standardized instructions Appendix C 30 slips of paper showing words used for experiment.
Appendix B 30 sheets of white paper for recalled words Procedure 1.
Participants were approached on June 13th, at They were given a consent form Appendix A to sign so they could be included in the psychology experiment and were read the standardized instructions Appendix C. Participants were then split into two groups by counting the first and second 15 as they entered the room.
Each condition had 15 participants. Each group was put into a separate room.
The first group of participants were shown 30 words Appendix B and perfteti asked to create a rhyme for the annd and record it on the response sheet. The response sheet was then taken away and they were given 5 minutes timed with a stopwatch to write down words they were able to remember on a sheet of paper. The second group of participants were then shown the 30 words Appendix B and were asked to create a synonym for each word and record it on the response sheet.
The response sheet was then taken away and they were given 5 minutes timed with a stopwatch to write down words they were qnd to recall.
After the experiment, participants were debriefed Appendix F. Patient information recall systems. Fast image deconvolution using Hyper. Video Notes from the Lectures. Methods for Dealing with Risks. Slides – Projects In Knowledge. Linguistics Phonetic Alphabets Transcription and notes.