Talk:Levels-of-processing effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Autism  
WikiProject icon Levels-of-processing effect is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Initial comment[edit]

I think that this theory is an interesting one, because it shows the three processes involved in the memory recall system.

What are your evaluations of the levels of processing Darren? I think that it is quite a good theory as it has lots of evidence to support it however there was no independent measure of whether processing was deep or shallow. What are your views on this?

This theory by Craik and Lockhart suggests that memory doesn’t have separate levels of storage, unlike the multi store model. Levels of processing consider that there are an unknown number of stores of processing levels of memory being stored in different forms of information. The levels are not distinct and the boundaries separating between these levels are not present. This is my vague view on the idea, anything to add Josh?

Well, Craik & Lockhart's level of processing model provided an interesting approach to memory which concentrated on structual issues of the deeper that we process things, the easier we will remember them. Although the theory has a lot of supportive evidence from experiments there is no independent measure of whether processing was deep or shallow.

I will be soon (December 6th) completely redoing this page for a class (Psychology and Free Will, taught by Jeremy Wolfe (http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/new/lab_members.html) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), so keep that in mind for edits. I am now in the process of performing research on this topic. FghIJklm 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have finished. Feel free to modify at will. FghIJklm (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unused sources[edit]

I embedded most of the sources but these seem to be lingerers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did not get[edit]

I'm ashamed to say that, not being an insider in neuroscience or psychology (or whatever field is required to understand the lingo being thrown around in the current state of this article), besides being interested in what the "Levels-of-processing effect" is about, I did not really understand much of what was going on. The summary left me more confused than enlightened.

Could someone perhaps clarify for someone not already enrolled in psychology? 123.217.31.246 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Theory Contradictions[edit]

"This theory contradicts the multi-store Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model in its representation of memory strength as continuously variable."

This statement is certainly too strong. It is likely false (see e.g., Raaijmakers, J.G.W. (1993). The story of the two-store model: Past criticisms, current status, and future directions. In Meyer, D.E. & Kornblum, S. (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIV: Synergies in Experimental Psychology, Artifical Intelligence, and Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. 467-488). In any case, the assertion requires support. How do these models conflict? The theories used different concepts (are different) but not incompatible. The sentence adds nothing to the article and should be deleted. Rob C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)