Introduction
Aim
To what extent does semantic processing lead to greater recall of words compared to
phonetic processing?
Background theory
The cognitive level of processing, identified by Craik and Lockhart (1972), is an example of
information processing. It is focused on how information is processed rather than
information being put into different memory stores. There are three levels of processing:
shallow, phonetic and semantic. 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 (1973) 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 (1975) wanted to find out whether deep and shallow processing affected
memory. They found semantically processed were better recalled than phonetically
processed and visually processed words. This is because semantically processed words
required deep processing while phonetically processed and visually processed words
required shallow processing.
Study 3
Mandler (1967) 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 (1973) looked at levels of processing, specifically phonetic and semantic
processing. This study will recreate this key study. 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 rhyming 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 tasks. 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.
Hypotheses
Alternative hypothesis: 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 Jenkins (1973),
have had the same results showing semantically encoded words had deep processing and
led to better recall, compared to phonetically encoded words.
Null hypothesis: There will be no significant difference in words being recalled by
participants that have used the different levels of processing: structural and phonetic. 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: phonetic and
semantic. 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 13. Out of the 30 students that were sampled, 17 were females 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 17-18 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, 2011 at 13:30 in an international school
high school classroom in Hong Kong to participate in a psychology experiment.
2. 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).
3. Participants were then split into two groups by counting the first and second 15 as
they entered the room. Each condition had 15 participants.
4. Each group was put into a separate room.
5. The first group of participants were shown 30 words (Appendix B) and were asked to
create a rhyme for the words and record it on the response sheet.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 recall.
9. After the experiment, participants were debriefed (Appendix F).