CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,121Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory

Craik, Fergus I. M., Tulving, Endel·1975·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

SUMMARY Ten experiments were designed to explore the levels of processing framework for human memory research proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). The basic notions are that the episodic memory trace may be thought of as a rather automatic by-product of operations carried out by the cognitive system and that the durability of the trace is a positive function of of processing, where depth refers to greater degrees of semantic involvement. Subjects were induced to process words to different depths by answering various questions about the words. For example, shallow encodings were achieved by asking questions about typescript; intermediate levels of encoding were accomplished by asking questions about rhymes; deep levels were induced by asking whether the word would fit into a given category or sentence frame. After the encoding phase was completed, subjects were unexpectedly given a recall or recognition test for the words. In general, deeper encodings took longer to accomplish and were associated with higher levels of performance on the subsequent memory test. Also, questions leading to positive responses were associated with higher retention levels than questions leading to negative responses, at least at deeper levels of encoding. Further experiments examined this pattern of effects in greater analytic detail. It was established that the original results did not simply reflect differential encoding times; an experiment was designed in which a complex but shallow task took longer to carry out but yielded lower levels of recognition than an easy, deeper task. Other studies explored reasons for the superior retention of words associated with positive responses on the initial task. Negative responses were remembered as well as positive responses when the questions led to an equally elaborate encoding in the two cases. The idea that elaboration or of encoding provides a better description of the results was given a further boost by the finding of the typical pattern of results under intentional learning conditions, and where each word was exposed for 6 sec in the initial phase. While spread and elaboration may indeed be better descriptive terms for the present findings, retention depends critically on the qualitative nature of the encoding operations performed; a minimal semantic analysis is more beneficial than an extensive structural analysis. Finally, Schulman's (1974) principle of congruity appears necessary for a complete description of the effects obtained. Memory performance is enhanced to the extent that the context, or encoding question, forms an integrated unit with the word presented. A congruous encoding yields superior memory performance because a more elaborate trace is laid down and because in such cases the structure of semantic memory can be utilized more effectively to facilitate retrieval. The article concludes with a discussion of the broader implications of these data and ideas for the study of human learning and memory,

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Earlier cognitive psychology experiments on the effects of reward on memory used shorter retention intervals than the aforementioned studies.

    “It is noteworthy that earlier cognitive psychology experiments on the effects of reward on memory used shorter retention intervals than the aforementioned studies (e.g. [58, 59]).”

    From A neoHebbian framework for episodic memory; role of dopamine-dependent late LTP (2011) · cites this paper as [58]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
ORCID
Craik, Fergus I. M.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1975-09
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
268-294
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
DOI
10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
OpenAlex
W2045385178
Cited by
4,121
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 170 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 187 · 2018: 135 · 2017: 109 · 2016: 122 · 2015: 154 · 2014: 173 · 2013: 109 · 2012: 135
FWCI
35.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
levels of processing, episodic memory, vocabulary retention, semantic encoding, elaboration, recognition memory, memory retrieval, encoding time, intentional learning, semantic memory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review