Lab 4
Encoding Specificity, Levels of Processing, & False Memory
Encoding Specificity, Levels of Processing, & False Memory
Encoding Specificity Lab
Data
Study/Test Cue* Proportion Correct
Weak/Weak 0.667
Weak/Strong 0.833
Strong/Weak 0.750
Strong/Strong 0.833
Lure 0.854
*Strong and Weak refer to the extent to which cue and target are related in meaning. Weak/Weak and Strong/Strong designate conditions where the cues, used at study and test, were the same. Weak/Strong and Strong/Weak designate conditions where the cues, used at study and test, were different.
● Do your results support the encoding specificity hypothesis? Why or why not? Note: Consider what led to the best results—having strong semantic associations between cue and target, or matching cues at encoding and test?
My results do support the encoding specificity hypothesis, but not as robustly as the trial predicts. My most accurate results were strong/strong, as the theory expects, but not as high as the theory would predict for weak/weak. Having equally high results (both at .83), for weak/strong and strong/strong, indicates that both strong semantic associations and matching cues were equally helpful for my accuracy.
● Describe a real or hypothetical example of a situation that demonstrates encoding specificity. Ensure that your example is original and not from course materials.
A real example of encoding specificity was evident yesterday after I went grocery shopping. I wrote a few things down while in my kitchen, then went shopping. However, I left the list on my counter and could not recall all the items. I did remember how many items there were, and knew I was forgetting an item. I kept thinking about it all the way home but could not recall the item until the moment I walked into my kitchen, where I created the list.
Condition/Task Proportion Correct
Letter/Encoding 1.000
Rhyme/Encoding 1.000
Semantic/Encoding 1.000
Letter/Test 0.500
Rhyme/Test 0.700
Semantic/Test 0.850
Lure/Test 0.750
● Do your results support the levels of processing theory? Why or why not? Focus on how well you did in the test condition (relative to how you encoded) to answer this question.
Yes, my results support the levels of processing theory. As the theory predicts, my best accuracy was for semantic trials because I used deeper processing thinking about the meaning of a word during the encoding phase. The letter trials were least accurate as the theory would surmise, as I only used a shallow level of processing while encoding.
● What is meant by deep processing? How might you use this to improve memory in a real-world scenario? Describe a unique example. Be creative!
Deep processing is how much thought I am putting into information. While encoding, if I pay attention to the meaning of something, relate it to something else using elaborative rehearsal, or give it context in my mind, then I am using deep processing, meaning I will be more likely to recall the information (Goldstein, 2019). I can use this everywhere in life by being more mindful but I will try to use it to remember something that always eludes me, a portion of my children’s social security numbers. Because I can’t seem to remember them through rehearsal, I am going to look at the numbers and see what connections I can make between them and consider how I can relate them to each particular child, such as similarity to age, birthday, time of birth, or their grades. This deeper processing will increase the likelihood of being able to recall it the next time it is required.
Type of Item Percent Recognized
Original List Item 92.857
Unrelated Lure (not in list) 4.167
Related Lure (not in list) 100.000
● Did your results conform to those predicted for this lab? Why or why not?
My results were very similar to the expected result of “very often” reporting the related distractor. By reporting it 100% of the time, it was even higher than predicted, group, and global results.
● How did this study set participants up to experience false memory? Deese, Roediger, and McDermott also found people can be confident in their selection of the false memory item. Why do you think that is? Your answer will be graded based on the depth of your thinking.
The study set up participants to experience false memories by exploiting the constructive nature of memory. By displaying words that are often related within the same schema, such as sweet, dessert, candy, and then presenting a related word that was not displayed, such as chocolate, the creators of the study understood participants would likely create a false memory through a constructive error process (Goldstein, 2019). This explicit memory test highlighted the role of prior knowledge and experience in how we organize, store, and retrieve information. These schemas act as cognitive structures, which effortlessly make associations and inferences when triggered, such as when we see/hear related items, which can lead us to confidently believe a false memory.
● Compare and contrast levels of processing with encoding specificity. Describe a difference and a similarity.
How we create long-term memories and are able to recall them can be explained by the levels of processing theory and enhanced through encoding specificity. The levels of processing theory states that how we encode information, whether through shallow or deep processing, influences how strong these memories are and how easily we can recall them (McLeod, 2023). When we take meaning from the information, connect it to previous knowledge, and use elaborative rehearsal, we use deep processing, which means we can better retain and retrieve this information (Goldstein, 2019). For example, the self-reference effect shows when we relate information to ourselves, which affects our encoding, we improve the memory. Similar to encoding specificity, which posits that we learn and encode information along with context, making the context from the learning environment relevant to the recall of the information (Goldstein, 2019). Both of these ideas emphasize the significance of encoding to making and retrieving memories. However, they differ in explaining what is responsible for enhancing recall.
References –
Goldstein, B. E. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.). Cengage.
Mcleod, S. (2023, February 26). Levels of Processing. Simplypsychology.org; Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html
MindTap - Cengage Learning. (2014). Ng.cengage.com; Cengage Learning. https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5868562500252548489124156979&eISBN=9781337408301&id=2075336089&snapshotId=3952969&