Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseWhile Craik and Lockhart's Levels of Processing Model was groundbreaking in 1972, it hasn't escaped criticism. Many psychologists have pointed out serious flaws in the theory that make it less reliable than it first appeared. Understanding these criticisms helps us see why memory research has moved beyond this model.
Key Definitions:
The biggest criticism is that the model uses circular logic. It says deep processing leads to better memory, but then defines deep processing as anything that leads to better memory. This makes it impossible to test properly!
Psychologists have identified several key problems with Craik and Lockhart's theory. These criticisms show why the model isn't as useful as researchers once thought.
One of the biggest issues is that there's no independent way to measure how "deep" processing actually is. Researchers can only judge depth by looking at memory performance afterwards. This creates a logical loop that makes the theory untestable.
Scientists need to measure depth before testing memory, but the model doesn't tell us how to do this independently.
If someone remembers a word well, we say it was processed deeply. But we only know it was processed deeply because they remembered it well!
Good scientific theories must be testable. This circular reasoning makes proper testing impossible.
Morris, Bransford and Franks (1977) showed participants words and tested them with either meaning-based questions or rhyme-based questions. When the test matched the original processing type, performance was better - even for supposedly "shallow" phonemic processing. This challenged the idea that semantic processing is always superior.
Several researchers have proposed different explanations for why some information is remembered better than others. These alternatives often provide better explanations than the levels of processing model.
This theory suggests that memory works best when the way you learn something matches the way you're tested on it. It's not about how "deep" the processing is, but about how well the learning and testing situations match up.
If you learn football tactics by reading about them, you might struggle to apply them on the pitch. But if you learn by practising, you'll perform better in actual games because the learning and testing conditions match.
Some psychologists argue that what really matters isn't depth, but how much you elaborate on information and how distinctive it is. The more connections you make and the more unique the information seems, the better you'll remember it.
Making lots of connections between new information and what you already know helps memory, regardless of processing "depth".
Unusual or unique information stands out in memory, making it easier to recall later.
The situation and environment during learning affects memory more than processing depth alone.
Multiple studies have found results that don't fit with the levels of processing model. This evidence suggests the theory is too simple to explain how memory really works.
Craik and Lockhart claimed that simple repetition (maintenance rehearsal) doesn't improve long-term memory. However, several studies have shown that repetition can be very effective, especially when it's spaced out over time.
These researchers had participants repeat words for different lengths of time (2, 6, or 18 seconds). According to the levels of processing model, this maintenance rehearsal shouldn't improve memory. But they found that longer repetition did lead to better recall, contradicting the model's predictions.
The model assumes that everyone processes information in the same way, but research shows huge individual differences. What counts as "deep" processing for one person might be "shallow" for another, depending on their knowledge and experience.
A car mechanic might process information about engines very differently from someone who knows nothing about cars. The mechanic's "shallow" processing might be more effective than a novice's "deep" processing.
Beyond the theoretical problems, the levels of processing model has practical limitations that make it less useful for understanding real-world memory.
Memory is incredibly complex, involving multiple systems and processes. The levels of processing model tries to explain everything with one simple idea, but this oversimplifies how memory actually works.
We now know there are different types of memory (working memory, long-term memory, episodic memory) that work in different ways.
Memory involves encoding, storage and retrieval - each with their own complexities that the model doesn't address.
Laboratory studies don't always reflect how memory works in everyday situations with distractions and competing demands.
Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model provides a more detailed explanation of how we process information. It shows that memory involves multiple components working together, rather than just different "levels" of processing. This model better explains phenomena like why we can remember a phone number while doing mental arithmetic.
Understanding the problems with the levels of processing model is important because it shows how scientific knowledge develops. When theories have flaws, researchers develop better explanations that fit the evidence more accurately.
The criticisms of Craik and Lockhart's model have led to more sophisticated theories that better explain how memory works. These newer models consider multiple factors and avoid the circular reasoning problems of the original theory.
Criticism and debate are essential parts of science. By identifying problems with existing theories, researchers can develop better explanations that help us understand memory more accurately.
While the levels of processing model was influential, its criticisms show important limitations. The circular reasoning problem, lack of independent measurement and contradictory research evidence all suggest that memory is more complex than this model suggests. Modern psychology has moved beyond this simple approach to develop more comprehensive theories that better explain how we remember and forget information.