Evaluate schema theory with reference to

research studies
   Welcome back fellow psychologists. In this article, I will be providing tips on how to answer the
following question: evaluate schema theory with reference to research studies. After doing so, I
will be then providing a sample answer as always. Without further ado, here are some tips and a
final, complete answer.

   The tips that I would give for this question are:

 This is an evaluate question. This means whilst you must give supporting evidence for
schema theory, you must also find weaknesses of schema theory or other possible explanations
i.e. Cohen (1993).
 The studies I would recommend and I am going to use to support schema theory are:
Bartlett (1932) and Brewer & Treyens (1981).

Now that I have introduced the focus of the question and given a couple of tips to help answer
the question, here is my final answer.

   This essay will attempt to provide an evaluation of schema theory with the use of supporting
research studies while also highlighting weaknesses it has.
   First of all, a schema is a mental representation of knowledge stored in the brain. It is a
network of knowledge, beliefs and expectations about particular aspects of the world.
Knowledge that is stored in our memory is organized as a set of schemas, which represent the
general knowledge about the world, people, events, objects, actions and situations that has
been acquired from past experiences. There a variety of different schemas. Script schemas
provide information about sequences of events that occur i.e. going to school, going to the
dentist or going on holiday. Self-schemas are like a profile that we have on ourselves such as
our strengths and weaknesses and how they make us feel. Finally, social schemas represent
information about groups of people e.g. English, Asian, pensioners, doctors etc.
   Schema theory therefore is the cognitive theory of processing and organizing information.
Schema theory states that “as active processors of information, humans integrate new
information with existing, stored information.” The effect this has is that existing knowledge
stored in our memory and organized in the form of schemas will affect information processing
and behavior in specific settings. While it is not yet possible to see how the brain processes and
stores information, the concept of schema theory helps psychologists comprehend what cannot
be seen.
In the main body of this essay, schema theory will be evaluated, making an appraisal by
weighing up strengths and limitations with some reference to studies on the effect of schema on
memory.
A significant researcher into schemas, Bartlett (1932) introduced the idea of schemas in his
study entitled “The War of the Ghost.” Bartlett aimed to determine how social and cultural
factors influence schemas and hence can lead to memory distortions. Participants used were of
an English background. They were asked to read “The War of the Ghosts” – a Native American
folk tale. Bartlett tested their memory of the story using serial reproduction and repeated
reproduction, where they were asked to recall it six or seven times over various retention
intervals. The first condition, serial reproduction consisted of the following: the first participant
who read the story reproduced it on paper, which was then read by a second participant who
reproduced the first participant’s reproduction, and so on until it was reproduced by six or seven
different participants. The second condition, repeated reproduction comprised of the following
method: the same participant reproduced the story six or seven times from their own previous
reproductions. Their reproductions occurred between time intervals from 15 minutes to as long
as several years.
   What Bartlett found out was that both methods lead to similar results. As the number of
reproductions increased, the story became shorter and there were more changes to the story.
For example, ‘hunting seals’ changed into ‘fishing’ and ‘canoes’ became ‘boats’. These changes
show the alteration of culturally unfamiliar things into what the English participants were
culturally familiar with. This makes the story more understandable according to the participants’
experiences and cultural background. Bartlett found that recalled stories were distorted and
altered in various ways making it more conventional and acceptable to their own cultural
perspective. Bartlett concluded that memory is unreliable as it can be easily reconstructed by
pre-existing schemas. Bartlett’s study helped to explain through the understanding of schemas
when people remember stories, they typically leave out some details, and introduce
rationalizations and distortions, because they reconstruct the story so as to make more sense in
terms of their knowledge, the culture in which they were brought up in and experiences in the
form of schemas.
   Therefore, Bartlett's study shows how schema theory is useful for understand how people
categories information, interpret stories, and make inferences. It also contributes to
understanding of cognitive distortions in memory.
   Another study demonstrating schema theory is by Brewer and Treyens (1981). They aimed to
demonstrate whether a stereotypical schema of an office would affect memory of an office. 30
university students were taken into a university student office and left for 35 seconds before
being taken to another room. They were then asked to write down as much as they could
remember from the office.
   The results showed that participants recalled things of a “typical office” according to their
schema. They did not recall the wine and picnic basket that were in the office. Brewer and
Treyens hypothesized this was due to the participants' schema of an office influenced their
memory of it. They did not recall the wine and picnic basket because it is not part of their “typical
office” schema.
This study shows schema theory as this study provides evidence to support how our schemas
can affect our cognitive processes, in particular memory, similar to Bartlett's study.
   A further study demonstrating schematic influence is by French and Richards (1933). They
investigated the schemata influence on memory retrieval. In the study there were three
conditions:

 Participants were shown a clock with roman numerals and asked to draw from memory.
 The same procedure, except the participants were told beforehand that they would be
required to draw the clock from memory.
 The clock was left in full view of the participants and they just had to draw it.

The clock used represented the number four with IIII, not the conventional IV. The results
showed that in the first two conditions, the participants reverted to the conventional IV notation,
whereas in the third condition, the IIII notation, because of the direct copy. They found that
subjects asked to draw from memory a clock that had Roman numerals on its face typically
represented the number four on the clock face as “IV” rather than the correct “IIII,” whereas
those merely asked to copy it typically drew “IIII.” French and Richards explained this result in
terms of schematic knowledge of roman numerals affecting memory retrieval. The findings
supported the idea that subjects in the copy condition were more likely than subjects in other
conditions to draw the clock without invoking schematic knowledge of Roman numerals.
   This study provides evidence to support how our schemas can affect our cognitive processes,
in particular memory. Our schemas influence what we recall in our memory.
   Although there is substantial evidence to prove schema theory, there hasn’t been enough
research to disprove it. Furthermore, some have stated that schema theory isn’t a substantial
enough theory to prove anything. An example is Cohen (1993). Cohen argued that the concept
of schema is too vague and hypothetical to be useful. Schemas cannot be observed. Even the
use of fMRI simply shows brain activity, they do not clarify what exactly the individual is
processing at the time. Another criticism is that it is not entirely clear how schemas are acquired
in the first place and how they influence cognitive processes.
   Therefore, schema theory is supported by lots of research to suggest schemas affect memory
processes knowledge, both in a positive and negative sense. Through supporting studies,
schema theory was demonstrated in its usefulness for understanding how memory is
categorized, how inferences are made, how stories are interpreted, memory distortions and
social cognition. However, there aren’t many studies that evaluate and find limitations of
schema theory. In addition, it is not clear exactly how schemas are initially acquired, how they
influence cognitive processes and how people choose between relevant schemas when
categorizing people. Furthermore, Cohen (1993) argued that the concept of a schema is too
vague to be useful. He also acknowledged that schema theory does not show how schemas are
required and it is not clear which develops first; the schema to interpret the experiences or vice
versa.
Schema theory explains how new information is categorized according to existing knowledge.
But it does not account for completely new information that cannot link with existing knowledge.
Therefore, it does not explain how new information is organized in early life.
   Overall, with the amount of evidence, schema theory should be considered an important
theory that provides insight into information processing and behavior. It has contributed largely
to our understanding of mental processes. But the theory requires further research and
refinements to overcome its limitations and uncover its unclear aspects.

Well there you are. That was my own answer to the question: evaluate schema theory with
reference to research studies. I hope you found my answer and the tips I gave you helpful and
useful for you when you write your own response to this question. In the next article, I will be
answering the question: describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining
behavior. Stayed tuned for that. In the meantime, if you have any comments, drop them down
below and I'll do my best to answer them as soon as possible.

Posted by Unknown at 11:36 
Email ThisBlogThis!Twitter Facebooks hare
Labels: IB, Psychology

No comments:
Post a comment
The short-answer questions in this resource are:
  
Evaluate two
 

models or
theories of one
cognitive
process with
reference to
research
studies.

Introductio
n
 State what you are doing in
the essay 
o The following
essay aims to make an
appraisal of two models of
memory whilst weighing up
the strengths and limitations of
each. 
 Define Memory 
o Memory is defined
to be the mental process of
encoding, storing and
retrieving information. 
 Outline Memory Process 
o Memory
undergoes a series of stages in
order to store its information. 
1. Encoding
process: incoming
information is organized
and transformed so it can
be entered into memory 
2. Storage
process: involves entering
 and maintaining information
in memory for a period of
time 
3. Retrieval
process: involves recovering
stored information from
memory so it can be used 
 State the different
models/theories of memory
There are three main types of
models of memory that
demonstrate how our memory
processes work including the: 
o Multistore Model
(MSM) 
o Working Memory
Model (WM) 
o Levels of
Processing Model (LOP) 
 State which Memory
models you will be evaluating: 
o As such, this essay
response will be focussed on
the evaluation of MSM & LOP
memory models supported the
arguments with relevant
studies. 

Body
Memory Model 1: The Multi-
store Model of Memory

 Describe the MSM: 

o Proposed by
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)
o The multi-store
model (MSM) consists of three
memory stores: 
 Sensory
memory (SM) 
 Short-
term memory (STM) 
 Long
term memory (LTM) ... that
is used for different tasks. 
 Briefly explain the memory
stores 
o SM is... 
 A storage
system that holds
 information in a relatively
unprocessed form for
fractions of a second after
the physical stimulus is no
longer available – stores
sensory characteristics of a
stimulus. 
 Plays a
vital role in filtering out
useless information,
enabling us to focus our
attention on important
details. 

 STM is...
 A limited-capacity memory system
for storing information for brief
periods of time. 
 A & S (1968) see STM
as a temporary storage
depot for incoming
information after it
receives and encodes
information from the
sensory memory. 

 LTM is...:
o Holds a vast
quantity of information, which
can be stored for long periods
of time. 
o Information kept
here is diverse and wide-
ranging, including all our
personal memories, general
knowledge and beliefs about
the world, plans for the future,
and where our knowledge
about skills and expertise is
deposited. 

 These different memory

stores differ from one another
with regards to: 
o Duration: how
long information can be
stored 
o Capacity: how
much information can be
 stored 
o Coding: in what
form information can be
stored 

 The Sensory Store 

 Duration:
decays rapidly 
 Capacity:
unlimited 
 Coding:
information is picked up by
our senses and stored in this
form 
o Iconic: visual
information enters the visual
store 
o Echoic: auditory
information is handled by the
auditory sensory store 
o Haptic:
information picked up via
sense of touch 

 Short Term Memory (Store)

(STM/S): 
o Duration: 15-30
seconds (Atkinson & Shiffrin,
1971) 
o Capacity: limited; 7
± 2units (Miller, 1956)
o Coding:
Acoustically (Baddeley, 1966) 
 Informati
on is lost unless it is
rehearsed (via repetition) 

 Long Term Memory (Store)

(LTM/S):
o Duration: Long-
lasting (perhaps for a lifetime),
proposed that it could last for
48 years (Bahrick et al, 1975)
o Capacity:
Unlimited
o Coding: Primarily
semantic (Baddeley, 1966); but
also acoustic and visual
 Informati
on in the LTS can also be
recalled via retrieval,
bringing the information
 back to the STS 

Supporting Study 1: Baddeley

(1966) 
Experiment 1: STM
Introduce Study --> link to
question:

 A key researcher who

investigated encoding, (which is
the first and crucial process of
creating memories, which allows
the perceived item of interest to
be converted into a
construct/concept that can stored
within the brain, and then recalled
later from the STM or LTM) is by
Baddeley (1966). 

Aim: 

 To investigate encoding in
the short term memory store 

Methods: 

 Participants were given lists

of words that were: 
o acoustically similar
(e.g. cat, mat...) 
o acoustically
different (e.g. pen, cow...) 
o semantically
similar (e.g. boat, ship...) 
o semantically
different (e.g. book, tree...) 
 Their recall of the words
was tested. 

Results: 

 In STM, better recall of

acoustically different than
acoustically similar words
o more errors with
similarly sounding words than
distinctly sounding words 
 Slightly better recall of
semantically different words than
 semantically similar words’ 

Conclusions: 

 In the STS, information is

encoded acoustically because
recall is affected by the sound of
words

Experiment 2: LTM 
Aim:

 To investigate encoding in
LTM

Method:

 Participants were given the

same lists of words in the
previous experiment for STM 
 Their recall of the words
was tested 

Results: 

 In LTM, no difference in
recall of acoustically different and
acoustically similar words 
 Much better recall of
semantically different words than
semantically similar words 

Conclusion: 

 In LTM, there is semantic

encoding because recall is
affected by meaning of words

Evaluation: 
Strengths

 Laboratory experiment
o strict control over
variables 
o able to determine
a cause-effect relationship
between 

Weaknesses
 Laboratory experiment 
o Lacks ecological
validity
 Task is unrealistic; does not
reflect daily activity participants
would do

Connection of study to question

This study supports the Multi-
store model of memory as it
shows that:

o STM and LTM

have different encoding
processes:
 STM:
acoustic encoding 
 LTM:
semantic encoding 
o Thus STM & LTM
are separate stores. 
 Applications of the MSMin
studies relating to memory
o Case studies into
rare individuals demonstrating
the MSM’S three stores are by
Sacks and Shallice &
Warrington.

Supporting Study 3: Clive

Wearing – Sacks (2007)
Introduce Study link to
question:

 A study demonstrating
memory processes between the
STM and LTM in regards to
the MSM is by Sacks on Clive
Wearing (2007).

 History:
o Clive Wearing was
a musician who got a viral
infection encephalitis. 
o This left him with
serious brain damage in the
hippocampus, which caused
him memory impairment. 
o He suffers from: 
 anterogra
de amnesia impairment in
 ability to remember after a
particular incident 
 retrograd
e amnesia impairment in
ability to remember before
a particular incident

 Findings:
o Wearing still has
ability to talk, read, write, and
sight-read music (procedural
knowledge) 
o He could not
transfer information from STM
tLTM. 
o His memory lasted
7-30 seconds, and he was
unable to form new memories. 

 Conclusion:
o STM & LTM are
separate stores 
o STM has limited
duration 

Evaluation: 

 Strengths
o Case study
Realistic 
o In-depth
information 
 Limitations 
o Cannot be
generalised to the whole
population

Connection of study to
question
This study supports the multi-
store model because it shows
that:

 STM and LTM are separate

stores
o Wearing has STM
intact but could not access
LTM
 STM has a limited duration
o  Wearing could
only use STM and he
 experienced time elapses of
around 30 seconds. It also
provides support for
anterograde amnesia.

Does not support the multistore

Model of memory because:

 Wearing had significant

damage to his declarative
memory, but his procedural
memory was fully intact
 This suggests that LTM is
separated into declarative and
procedural, rather than a single,
unitary store as the MSM
assumes.

Supporting Study 4: Shallice

and Warrington (1974)
KFIntroduce 
Study link to question:

 Another demonstrating
memory processes between the
STM and LTM in regards to
the MSM is by Shallice and
Warrington on KF (1974). 

History:

 KF was in a motorcycle
accident which impaired his
memory

Findings:

 He could transfer
information from STM tLTM 
 He suffered problems with
STM of different types of
information
o digit span was
severely impaired
o visual and auditory
information (e.g. telephone
ring) was unaffected

Conclusion:
 Findings suggest that:
o STM & LTM are
separate
o STM is not
required for LTM
o There may be
more than one STM store --> it
is possible to suffer
impairment of verbal
information without affecting
auditory information

Evaluation:
Strengths

 Case study Realistic

 In-depth information

Limitations

 Cannot be generalised to
the whole population

Connection of study to
question
This study supports the idea
that memory stores are not
unitary.KF suffered impairment
of some types of STM (verbal)
but had others fully intact
(auditory) STM store is not
unitary
EVALUATION OF THE MSM
MODEL:
STRENGTHS (+)

 Influential; early model that

stimulated further research into
memory processes 
o Still accepted by
most psychologists and is still
widely used
 Considerable evidence for
demonstrating the existence of
STM and LTM as separate
memory stores
o Differing via
duration, capacity and coding
 Provides support for
 anterograde amnesia
 Based on considerable
evidence and evidence for the
model is gained from a variety of
sources 
o e.g. studies of
brain damaged individuals
 Whereby
these studies support the
distinction between STS and
LTS
 Some
patients with amnesia suffer
damage tLTM but not STM,
and vice versa
 A
s demonstrated by
Shallice & Warrington
(1970); Milner (1966);
Baddeley (1997)

Demonstrates insight into different

memory processes, such as:

 Demonstrates differences in
encoding,
o i.e. STM = STM =
acoustic, LTM = semantic
 Demonstrates differences in
capacity,
o i.e. STM = 7±2,
LTM has no limits
 Demonstrates differences in
duration 
o i.e. STM = approx.
20 seconds (Peterson &
Peterson, 1959), LTM = 48
years (Bahrick et al.,1975).
 Demonstrates in ability to
form declarative or procedural
memories by patients with brain
damage, amnesia.

LIMITATIONS (-)

 There is emphasis on the

amount of information taken into
memory
 Focuses too much on the
structure of memory systems
rather than providing an
 explanation on how it works
(functioning/ processing)
 Reductionist*,
oversimplifying memory
processes (Eysneck & Keane,
1995) – too simple
o Mechanical in
transfer from one store to
another
o Memory processes
are more complex and flexible 
 *a form
of explanation or approach
to understanding complex
things by simplifying (or
reducing) them to their
most basic parts.
 Assumes that stores are
single and unitary
 Unlikely that the diverse
information in LTM is contained in
one, simple, unitary store in same
form
o Tulving (1972)
suggests that LTM can be
divided into episodic, semantic
and procedural components,
stored separately
o Cohen & Squire
(1980) suggest LTM is divided
into 2:
 Declarativ
e memory: involves
recollection of facts and
events, includes episodic
and semantic memory. 
 Procedur
al memory: memories for
how to do things.
 Evidence from amnesia
patients who have poor
declarative knowledge with no
damage to procedural
knowledge 
o Spiers et al. (2001) 
o Clive Wearing
Baddeley, 1997
 Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
focused almost exclusively on
declarative knowledge and did
not account for procedural
knowledge in their model. 
 o Model suggests
that rote rehearsal is the only
way information transfers from
STM tLTM 
 Too
simple 
 Ignores
any other factors such as
effort and strategies people
employ to remember things
 Studies have questioned
whether the more information is
rehearsed, the more likely it is to
be transferred tLTM
 Rehearsal may be what
occurs in laboratory experiments
but this lacks ecological validity 
 Most people rarely actively
rehearse information in daily life,
yet information is constantly
transferred into LTM (Eysenck and
Keane, 1995) 
o Rehearsal is not as
important as the MSM
suggests 
o Increased
rehearsal is no guarantee that
information will be stored in
LTM 
 MSM under-emphasises
interaction between stores
o transfer of
information is strictly
sequential
o information stays
in LTM until retrieved
 Does not consider the
possibility that LTM interacts and
even directs other memory stores
o Sensory what is
important to pay attention 
o STM helps
rehearsal or meaningful
chunking

Memory Model 2: The Levels

of Processing Model

 Describe the LOP

o Proposed by Craik
& Lockhart (1972)
o LOP predicts that
 how deeply people process
information determines how
well it is stored in memory
 Deeper,
meaningful processing
creates stronger, longer-
lasting memory traces.
 Shallow
processing leads to weaker
memory traces
o It states that
memory is a by-product of
processing information:
 Maintena
nce rehearsal (repetition to
hold information in STM) is
shallow processing and
leads to short-term
retention of information.
 A
s opposed to argument
of MSM
 Elaborati
on rehearsal (meaningful
analysis (e.g. images,
thinking, associations etc.)
of information) leads to
better recall.

 State the three levels of

processing
o Structural
(shallow) encode the physical
qualities/appearance 
o Phonological
(intermediate) encode
sound/auditory
o Semantic (deep)
encode meaning and associate
it with existing knowledge

Supporting Study 1: Hyde and

Jenkins (1973)
Introduce Study --> link to
question:

 A study investigating... is by
Hyde & Jenkins (1973). 

Aim: 
 ...’investigating’ whether
people could remember without
intentionally trying to, and
whether deeper processing leads
to better recall 

Method: 

 Participants were presented

with auditory lists of 24 words 
 Different groups of
participants were asked to
perform one of the following
tasks requiring different levels of
processing 
o rating words for
pleasantness 
o estimate
frequency with which each
word is used in the English
language 
o detect occurrence
of letters ‘e' and 'g' in any of
the words 
o decide part of
speech appropriate to each
word (e.g. noun, adjective) 
o decide whether
words fitted into a particular
sentence frame 
 Half participants were told
in advance that they would be
asked to recall words (intentional
learning group) 
 Other half were not
(incidental learning group) 

Results: 

 Minimal differences in the

number of words correctly
recalled between the intentional
and incidental learning groups.  
 Recall was significantly
better for words analysed
semantically (e.g. rated for
pleasantness) than words which
had been rated more superficially
 (e.g. detecting 'e' and 'g') 

Conclusion: 

 Maintenance rehearsal is
not necessary for learning. 

Evaluation: 
Strengths

 Laboratory experiment 
o strict control over
variables 
o able to determine
a cause-effect relationship
between 

Weaknesses 

 Laboratory experiment 
o Lacks ecological
validity
 Task is unrealistic; does not
reflect daily activity participants
would do

Connection of study to question

Thus study supports the LOP theory
because it shows that:

 semantic processing is
deeper than structural and leads
to better memory 
 intention is unnecessary for
retention
o supports Craik and
Lockhart's belief that retention
is a by-product of processing

Supporting Study 2: Craik

and Tulving, 1975
Introduce Study --> link to
question:

 A further study
“investigating the effects of deep
and shallow processing on
memory recall” is by Craik &
 Tulving (1975).

Aim:

 “To investigate how deep

and shallow processing affects
memory recall”

Method:

 Participants presented with

a series of 60 words about which
they had to answer one of three
questions, requiring different
depths of processing.
 Participants were then
given a long list of 180 words into
which the original words had
been mixed.
 They were asked to pick out
the original words.

Results:

 Participants recalled more

words that were semantically
processed compared to
phonemically and visually
processed.

Conclusion:

 Semantically processed
words involve deep processing
which results in more accurate
recall.

Evaluation:
Strengths

 Laboratory experiment
o strict control over
variables 
o able to determine
 a cause-effect relationship
between 

Weaknesses 

 Laboratory experiment 
o Lacks ecological
validity
 Task is unrealistic; does not
reflect daily activity participants
would do

Connection of study to question

 The experimental method

was used in this study because
the researchers wanted to find a
cause- effect relationship
between the level of processing
and memory recall.
o This would not be
able to be done using other
research methods such as
surveys or interviews.

EVALUATION OF THE LOP

MODEL:
STRENGTHS (+)
Overcomes criticisms of the
Multistore Model as being too
simple methods of
remembering. LOP was very
influential when first proposed.

 It changed the direction of

research and stimulated further
research into memory Accounts
for why some things are
remembered better and for
longer than others. LOP theory is
useful in daily life as it shows how
elaboration, which requires
deeper processing, leads to better
memory. It helps to understand
processes at learning stage.
Improvements on Multi-store
model of memory:
o Does not make
strict distinction between STM
 & LTM
o Does not regard
LTM as simple storage unit,
rather a complex processing
system 
o Encoding is not
simple and straightforward
o improvement on
the MSM's account of transfer
from STM tLTM
o Focuses on mental
processes rather than
structures
 Much research and
evidence supporting the LOP
theory's idea that deep
processing aids memory.

LIMITATIONS (-)
Lacks ecological validity

  all the evidence based on

laboratory experiments LOP
theory focuses on the processes
rather than structures of memory.
 Evidence (e.g. Clive
Wearing, KF) supports memory
structures of STM and LTM stores
proposed by MSM.

Major limitation difficult to define

“deep” processing

 It is vague and cannot be

observed, making it hard to
measure objectively
 Baddeley (1990) – cannot
independently assess depth
 Circular definition deeply
processed information will be
remembered better, but the
measure of depth is how well
information is remembered.
 LOP theory is descriptive
rather than explanatory. Though
later research has attempted to
explain how and why deep
processing is effective in
aiding memory, the original
 theory did not provide a detailed
explanation of this (Eysenck and
Keane, 1995). Ordering of
memory of LOP (semantic better
than phonological better than
structural) is not
always supported by research.
 Several studies have shown
that deeper processing does not
guarantee better
memory. Participants usually
spend more time and effort on
the tasks requiring deeper
processing. 
 Type of processing, amount
of effort and length of processing
time are often confounding 
 It is difficult to know that
depth of processing alone
influences memory 
 Better memory may be due
to more time or effort spent on
processing; not deeper
processing. Like the MSM, LOP
theory is too simplistic; research
indicates that memory is more
complex and varied than depth
and elaboration. 

Conclusion
Multistore Model of Memory

 Provides a good
explanation of the memory
structures 
 Is also supported by a large
amount of research 
 However, it still requires
further research to explain the
processes involved in memory 
 Needs to develop the
model from its oversimplified
explanations, to a more complex,
and thus, accurate model of
memory 

Levels of Processing 

 Provides a good description

 of the processes involved in
memory 
o But does not
account for the structure of
memory
 Further research should be
conducted to refine the theory
 Development of the theory
could be done to explain exactly
how memory processes work
and incorporate memory
structures

KEY TERMS

 Encoding refers to the
active process of putting stimulus
information into a form that can
be used by our memory system. It
requires you to form mental
representations of information
from the external world. 
o Semantic
Encoding – encoding
information through its
‘meaning’ 
o Acoustic Encoding
– encoding information
according to its ‘sound’ 
o Visual Encoding –
encoding information through
its ‘visual’ aspects 
 Storage refers to the
process of maintaining
information in memory. It requires
short and long term changes in
the structure of your brain. 
 Retrieval is the active
processes of locating and using
information (remembering).