Encoding Specifity Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        Do your results support the encoding specificity hypothesis? Why or why not? Note: Consider what led to the best results—having strong semantic associations between cue and target, or matching cues at encoding and test?

Researchers hypothesize that accuracy increases if the cue used during the encoding process is the same as the cue presented for the retrieval task, regardless of its strength (Goldstein, 2019). My results do support this hypothesis. Even when there were strong semantic associations during the retrieval task, my accuracy wasn’t as good as it was when the semantic associations were weak in both retrieval and encoding. Interestingly, I had identical accuracy when semantic associations were strong during encoding but both weak and strong during retrieval. Further, I was most accurate when semantic associations were consistently weak. I believe this is because the thought, “these items don’t relate” stuck out in my memory better than pairs I’d expect to see.

●        Describe a real or hypothetical example of a situation that demonstrates encoding specificity. Ensure that your example is original and not from course materials.

An example of encoding specificity in everyday life is driving vehicles. In my car, there is no ignition to insert a key- it is a button I push. When I rent a car for traveling, I often find that this set up is different in other vehicles. Although an ignition is strongly associated with a key, my encoded knowledge is that of a button. Therefore, I often try pressing a button before realizing I must insert a key. Worse is when the gear shift is in the form of a knob you can turn, which I’ve encoded into my memory as a volume button-not a gear shift.

Levels of Processing Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        Do your results support the levels of processing theory? Why or why not? Focus on how well you did in the test condition (relative to how you encoded) to answer this question.

According to researchers, accuracy should be greatest when semantics are used during encoding because the level of processing is deeper, which results in better memory (Goldstein, 2019). My results do follow this hypothesis. Letter recognition is the shallowest form of processing, rhyming requires a deeper level of processing, and semantics offers the deepest processing level (Goldstein, 2019). During my test, I was least accurate for the encoding process that only required letter recognition (shallow processing). I was more accurate for the deeper level of processing that required identifying rhymes. I was 100% accurate for the deepest level of processing that required an understanding of a word’s meaning (semantics).

●        What is meant by deep processing? How might you use this to improve memory in a real-world scenario? Describe a unique example. Be creative!

Deep processing requires understanding the meaning of a situation rather than simply committing it to memory. If you want to improve memory, the best way to do it is to give it meaning rather than just repeat it. For example, I cook dinner for my family every night, but I don’t often use recipes. Instead, I decide what flavor profile I want to give the dish I’m creating. Rather than just listing off spices in a recipe, I consider the unique taste and applications for each spice. By doing this, I can combine the spices to create a meal that accomplishes my goal. I know oregano and basil have earthy tastes, so they pair well with earthy vegetables like tomatoes and peppers. Cayenne pepper and cumin have a spicy profile, so I know how much to use dependent on what my goal for the dish is. By using the information I already have about each individual spice, I can process their contribution on a deeper level, allowing me to create dishes without the need for measuring spoons or recipes.  

False Memory Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        Did your results conform to those predicted for this lab? Why or why not?

Researchers predict that words relative to the lists will be recalled often, regardless of their actual appearance (Goldstein, 2019). My results did conform to these predictions. I recalled both originally listed items and relative lure items at the exact same rate. Even though the words I recalled were never actually presented, I remembered them due to my associations with the actual words listed.

●        How did this study set participants up to experience false memory? Deese, Roediger, and McDermott also found people can be confident in their selection of the false memory item. Why do you think that is? Your answer will be graded based on the depth of your thinking.

This study offered a list of words that were all closely related, so when other words that would logically appear amongst the listed ones were presented, it was likely that people would remember them even if they were never shown. I believe that people would be confident in their selections because they likely thought of these related words as the list was presented, even if they didn’t actively recognize they were doing so. Because they thought of these associations, it was likely that they recalled them during the retrieval test because they were there cognitively. Physically, these words didn’t exist, but our retrieval is based inside our minds; therefore, our brain would find it near impossible to distinguish between what we’ve constructed and what stimulated the construction.

Module Question

●        Compare and contrast levels of processing with encoding specificity. Describe a difference and a similarity.

Levels of processing can range from shallow to deep. The more meaning we assign to something, the deeper it is processed. When we see words and decipher whether or not they are capitalized, we are at a shallow stage of processing, though it is processing, nonetheless. We may remember seeing some of the words, but not at the same accuracy level we would achieve if we processed more deeply. When we are tasked with determining whether or not words rhyme, we process slightly more than just recognizing the state of the letters. We must recognize how each word sounds in relation to one another. Because we have thought about the words further than recognition, our memory of them will improve slightly. We might recall trying to rhyme them. When we are presented with a word and asked its meaning, we have to process it at an entirely different level. We have to understand what the word means and determine whether it fits the definition offered. When we go to recall it, we may recall describing it, which has the greatest chance at memory achievement. The levels of processing all require us to think about the word presented, but they differ in how we think about the words. The more we think about them, the greater our memory of them will be.

References

Goldstein, E. B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology (5th ed.) Cengage. https://www.cengage.com/