Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Craik & Tulving Study (1975)

No description

star page

on 12 January 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Craik & Tulving Study (1975)

Craik & Tulving Study (1975)
Method= A series of 10 laboratory experiments.
sample= Fairly small, for example 20 in the first experiment. Students used as participants.
Design= Repeated measures- same participants used in all conditions/experiments.
Different encoding questions gave rise to different response times.
The responses to the questions about meaning took longer.
Response times rise as the level of processing deepens,
Supports the Levels of processing theory proposed by Craik and Lockhart
Study was well controlled so replicable
No ethical guidelines broken
How were Craik and Tulving sure that participants stopped processing at the desired level? Possible demand characteristics.
Sample consisted of only 20 students so it was not representative of the entire popluation
The experiment was conducted in a laboratory, causing a lack of ecological validity
Deeper encoding took longer and gave higher levels of performance in terms of memory.
The aim of the Craik & Tulving 1975 study was to test the levels of processing framework, which claims that the best recalled ,material is that which has been processed by meaning.

Also it was hypothesized that depper processing would take longer than shallow processing.

The study therefore tests the Levels of Processing theory, examining attention, encoding, rehearsal and retrieval.
Participants were tested individually, and were told that the experiment was about perception and reaction time. In the experiments that made up the main study, participants were put into situations where they used different depths of processing:
shallow encoding; participants were asked questions about the script itself (structural analysis)
Intermediate depth encoding; participants were asked questions about rhyming words (phonetic analysis)
deep level encoding; participants were asked whether words fit into particular semantic categories (semantic analysis)

Different words were shown, one at a time, for 200 milliseconds. Before each word was shown, participants were asked a question about the word.The question led to different types of processing. In some experiments, the participants read the question on a card, in other experiments the question was read out to the participants. Types of words asked at encoding:
Structure of word tested: Is this word printed in capital letters?
phonetic encoding: Does this word rhyme with another word?
Semantic analysis: category or sentence questions- 'is this word a type of fruit?

Answers to questions were given as yes or no response keys. Participants were then given a recognition test.
In all experiments participants remembered words best that had been processed semantically. In the 1st experiment 96% of words recognized had been processed for whether they could fit into a sentence (semantic).
Memory was worse for words that had been processed structurally (only 18%).
78% of words were remembered phonetically, lying in the middle of smeantically and structurally processed words.
Full transcript