Levels of processing: A reply to Eysenck
Abstract
These comments take up the major issues raised in Eysenck's (1978) critique of Craik & Lockhart (1972): The problem of circularity in the definition of ‘depth’, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative differences in encoding, and the relationship between the concepts of depth, strength and elaboration. It is claimed that despite certain weaknesses, the original formulation possesses considerable heuristic value.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00164 · Cited by 819 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Lockhart, Robert S.
- ORCID
- Craik, Fergus I. M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1978-05
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-175
- ISSN
- 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8295
- OpenAlex
- W2166813047
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 15 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- levels of processing, encoding, elaboration
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
