Elaborative Encoding As an Explanation of Levels of Processing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 21, 165-- 174 (1982) Elaborative Encoding as an Explanation of Levels of Processing GARY L. BRADSHAW AND JOHN R. ANDERSON Carnegie-Mellon University Three experiments were performed to study how elaboration of memory structures affects recall accuracy and response latency. The experiments introduce a methodology which can independently manipulate the amount and type of elaborations given to subjects. Using this methodology, it was shown that integrated, highly elaborated memory traces were better recalled than either small unelaborated traces or large, poorly integrated traces. The results have implications for current analyses of levels of processing phenomena, and were found to support the encoding elaboration model (J. R. Anderson & L. M. Reder, Levels of process- ing in human memory. HiUsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979). In their original conceptualization, Craik criminability of the memory trace (Lock- and Lockhart (1972) argued that memory hart, Craik, & Jacoby, 1976). traces were a record of the processing done Craik and Tulving (1975) performed a on a stimulus. Qualitatively different traces series of experiments which they inter- were said to result from processing a preted as showing both effects of depth of stimulus in different ways. Researchers processing and degree of elaboration. Rep- characterized processing tasks in terms of licating earlier research, they found better the level, or depth, of processing, Early performance for semantically processed studies (Hyde & Jenkins, 1973; Schulman, material than for shallow, physically pro- 1970) reported meaningful, semantic pro- cessed material. This result was obtained cessing of materials led to superior perfor- even when the shallow task took longer to mance on a subsequent recall or recognition perform than the semantic task. Craik and task than performance after shallow, non- Tulving felt that differences in elaboration semantic processing. This superiority was could not account for these results. Such a explained in terms of greater durability of conclusion was natural from a levels of pro- semantic traces (Kintsch, 1975), or less in- cessing framework, which regards memory terference between semantic traces (Wick- as simply a record of perception. Since the elgren, 1973) over other types of traces. shallow analysis took longer to perform, However, this simple analysis was inade- they argued that the memory trace must quate to account for differences in recall for have been more elaborate than the semantic material processed at the same, deep level analysis. They concluded that the memory (Bobrow & Bower, 1969). Later accounts traces were qualitatively different between expanded upon the original formulation by these tasks, due to processing items at dif- proposing that processing within a level ferent levels. could differ in terms of its degree of elab- Craik and Tulving observed differences oration (Craik & Tulving, 1975), or the dis- in recall for semantically processed items, contingent upon a yes or no response in the orienting task. They also found better per- This research was supported by Grant BNS78-17463 formance when subjects had to judge words from the National Science Foundation. Requests for in the context of more elaborate sentence reprints should be sent to John R. Anderson, Depart- frames. These results they thought re- ment of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213. We would like to thank Lynne flected the effect of degree of elaboration at Reder for her comments on an earlier draft of this a particular level. Craik and Tulving con- manuscript. cluded that two mechanisms were at work 165 0022-5371/82/020165-10502.00/0 Copyright O 1982 by AcademicPress, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 166 BRADSHAW AND ANDERSON to produce the results observed. Processing elaboration models (Anderson & Reder, tasks with different levels affected the 1979). qualitative nature of the memory trace, The first class of models (Bransford et while differences which occurred at the al., 1979; Tulving, 1979) account for re- same level of processing were due to differ- duced performance for shallow processing ences in elaboration of the memory trace. by noting the information extracted in the Recently, a major series of criticisms semantic processing test is more consistent have been leveled at the original levels of with the retrieval requirements of the sur- processing formulation. Craik and Lock- prise recall task than information extracted hart (1972) claimed that subjects only en- in the other tests. Bransford et al. refer to code attributes of a stimulus item required this theory as transfer-appropriate pro- by the orienting task. A question about the cessing while Tulving sees this as an exten- sound of a word was said to lead to a trace sion of his encoding specificity principle. which encoded that attribute, but not in- To be somewhat neutral we will refer to this formation about the orthographic features type of account of depth of processing as or meaning of that word. Numerous ex- encoding-appropriateness. Our major crit- periments have been done (e.g., Bransford, icism of this approach is that it is simply a Franks, Morris, & Stein, 1979; Eysenck, summary of empirical data, rather than a 1979; Nelson, 1979) that indicate a memory model of the processes involved. As such, trace records multiple levels of information. it is unable to predict the effects of many For instance, Nelson, Reed, and McEvoy study manipulations including the ones to (1977) showed that phonetic or semantic be reported here. interference will lower recall independent The distinctiveness models (Bransford et of the original orienting task. Nelson (1979) al., 1979; Jacoby & Craik, 1979; Nelson, argued that orienting tasks have their effect 1979; Eysenck, 1979; Wickelgren, 1973) by emphasizing the attributes that are in- rest on the assertion that semantically pro- volved by them. Subjects automatically cessed traces are more distinct from one process items at many levels, but may di- another than are traces processed with re- rect further controlled processing to elabo- spect to surface properties like phonetic rate upon a particular attribute. structure. Calling on past research from the Most current models of levels of process- interference literature, these models predict ing phenomena (Jacoby & Craik, 1979; Nel- that more distinctive traces will be better son, 1979; Eysenck, 1979) accept the gen- recalled. Anderson and Reder (1979) argued eral formulation which has been developed that there are many situations where recall here: Subjects will automatically encode for highly distinctive events can be further most attributes of stimulus materials re- facilitated by elaborative processing. For gardless of the orienting task. Manipula- instance, Bower, Kadin, and Dueck (1975) tions in the orienting tasks are effective be- demonstrated better memory for distinctive cause they direct further controlled pro- drawings when the drawings were given cessing to different levels. Differences in meaningful interpretations. The experi- current models do not center around the ments to be reported here will contain a di- initial encoding of information, but rather rect contrast between the predictions of how the encoded information leads to dif- distinctiveness and elaboration. ferences in retrieval. There are three gen- Anderson and Reder (1979) proposed an eral types of explanations: models that em- elaboration model which could explain phasize the match between study and test depth-of-processing effects. According to (Bransford et al., 1979; Tulving, 1979), dis- this theory the to-be-remembered material tinctiveness models (Jacoby & Craik, 1979; and any elaborations are encoded into a Lockhart et al., 1976; Eysenck, 1979), and propositional network. Any particular en- ENCODING ELABORATION 167 coded proposition is fragile. There is a sig- in recall for the main fact like Newton be- nificant chance that the subject will not be came emotionally unstable and insecure as able to activate that proposition at test. a child. In the caused-by and resulted-in However, if the subject generated a mem- conditions subjects were provided with two ory episode which encoded a set of multiple other highly related facts. We assume that propositions that were partially redundant these facts are like the kinds of elaborations with the to-be-remembered information, he subjects would generate themselves. The or she would have a much better chance of unrelated condition also included two addi- recalling it at the time of test. There are two tional facts, but these facts had little con- basic ways that a more elaborate encoding nection to the target central fact. Finally, in can lead to better memory. One, which we the single condition, subjects studied just call network redundancy, involves using the main fact. alternate retrieval paths created by the The elaboration model predicts best re- elaborations. The second possibility, which call in the related condition. This is because is more appropriate to sentential material this condition creates the kind of network than single word material, is what we call and inferential redundancy that is postu- inferential redundancy. This refers to the lated to promote good recall. Memory per- fact that the subject may be able to infer the formance should be worst in the unrelated material he studied from remaining elab- conditions, according to the ACT theory, orations. because these facts only