FREE ESSAY ON PSYCHOLOGY: DEPTH OF PROCESSING AND THE SELF REFERENCE EFFECT

PSYCHOLOGY: DEPTH OF PROCESSING AND THE SELF REFERENCE EFFECT

Introduction
There have been many experiments done on depth of processing and the self reference
effect. The Depth of Processing model of memory maintains that how deep something is
encoded into a person's memory depends on using certain types of processing. This relates
to the self reference effect because it is believed that people have the tendency to
remember something better when they can relate it to themselves. People who can
personally relate to something have the tendency to embed it deeper into their memory.
Craik and Tulving did a series of experiments on the depth of processing model. They had
participants use a series of processing methods to encode words at different levels;
shallow, moderate, and deep. The subjects were shown a series of words and ask questions
about the words that would provide a yes or no response. At the shallow level they were
asked questions about whether or not the word was written in capital letters. At the
moderate level of processing, the subject was asked questions as to whether or not two
words rhymed. Finally, the subjects were asked about words in sentences and whether or
not they fit. This was the deep level of processing. After participants had completed the
task they were then given a surprise recognition test with the words that they were just
asked questions on (target words) and then words that they have never seen before
(distraction words). The results of the experiment showed that people remembered the
words better that were at deeper level of processing (Craik and Tulving 1975).
Although there was some criticisms about the above experiment, Craik and Tulving
performed more experiments each time refining the D.O.P. model. There were thoughts that
the structural tasks were easier and not as much time had to be spent on them therefore
people did not have as long to look at those words and could not study them like the
other tasks. Craik and Tulving then made the structural task take equally as long as the
other tasks. The results remand the same as the previous experiments. Craik and Tulving
also originally started with five tasks, but then narrowed it down to three to avoid a
ceiling effect. The self-referent task was later added to model by Rogers. 
Palmere, Benton, Glover, and Ronning (1983) did a series of experiments continuing the
research on the depth of processing model. They used paragraphs and within the paragraph
there were sentences that were supported and then ones that were not. After the subjects
were through reading all the paragraphs, they were then given a recognition test on the
information in the paragraph. The results of this experiment showed that the subjects
remember more information about the sentences which were supported with other information
rather the ones that stand alone. This supports to the depth of processing because
according to this experiment people remember information that had more detail which would
require more thinking which would in turn encode the information at a much deeper level.
The deeper information is encode people are more likely able to recall the information.
Another experiment was done by Bower and Karlin (1974) which tested the depth of
processing model on memory fue faces. They used college student pictures out yearbooks
that were put onto slides. They then showed the slide to the subjects who were asked
questions. The subjects were then ask to look at a serious of slides and asked whether or
not that person had appeared in the original group of slides shown. The results of this
experiment showed that when a person had a more detailed response about a person, the
subject was more inclined to remember that person from the original group. This relates
back to the Depth of Processing model because it showing by using more detail,
information can be processed more deeply.
This experiment as well supports the depth of processing model because it shows that when
a person has to think more and respond to a much deeper question, they are more likely to
remember. The shallower the depth at which the information is processed the more likely a
person is to forget the information. When information is processed at a deeper level it
requires more thought, therefore it is embedded into the memory.
Research on the D.O.P. model led to the investigation of the self-referent effect, which
focuses on people remembering information when they can relate the information to
themselves. It is thought that information that can be encoded in relation to the self is
the deepest form of processing. Rodgers, Kuiper, and Kirker (1977) define the self as
being a lifetime of experiences and that there are schemas created for all that one has
done to help keep information organized. When new information is experienced a person is
more likely to remember it if the person has a similar schema already created because
they can make associations. 
There is a problem with self-referent because the are people who have extreme schemas.
There are people who will resist information that goes against their self only relating
to things that really describes then or really does not. Then there are people out there
that have no real opinion about themselves and they are just in the middle. For the most
part people are more likely to remember words that relate to them and their schema.
Rogers, Kuiper and Kirker (1977) explored the idea of the self-referent effect. The
participants were given a series of adjectives and asked questions about the given
adjective. There were four different tasks used: structural, phonemic, semantic, and
self-referent. The structural, phonemic, and semantic were used by Craik and Tulving
(1975), while self-referent test as led Does the word describe you? The results of this
experiment showed that people were more likely to remember the adjectives that they
related to themselves rather than those related to any of the other forms of processing.
This supports the idea that self-referent is related to the depth of processing model as
representations of the deepest form of processing. 
The purpose of this experiment was to explore further the self-referent effect and its
relation to the depth of processing model. Using the Rogers, Kuiper, and Kiker experiment
the same general method was used. The participants were shown adjectives and asked a
question, either structural, phonemic, semantic, or self-referent. A recall test was then
given about the adjectives that had been presented. When the participant is given the
recall test it is more likely they will recall phonemic information more than structural,
the semantic information better than the phonemic, but the self-referent will be recall
even greater than semantic. 
Methods
Participants
There were twenty college students selected from general psychology courses at a small
mid western religious affiliated university. The people selected were both male and
females around the same general age, college students. This experiment was completely
voluntary, but the participants were offered extra credit if they participated. They were
read on informed consent and were asked to sign it before participating in the actual
experiment (appendix A informed consent form). 
Apparatus
The hard machinary used in the experiment was very limited. There was a t-scope used to
present the slides. The experiment used was modeled after Rogers experiment, so the
information in this experiment is similar. The stimuli used were adjectives used from
Meyers Briggs typed inventory. There were twenty positive adjective chosen and twenty
negative adjectives (appendix B master list). The task adjectives were chosen from
Webster's Theasourous, Webster's Rhyming Dictionary. They were then presented and agreed
upon by a consensous. The attempt was made as well to have all the task words be
adjectives. The adjectives were then used in various tasks. The complete wording on the
tasks can be found in appendix C and the complete task can be found in Table 1. 
Procedure
The particapants lead into the room by an experimentor and tested independently. The
subjects were sat at a table in the middle of the room. The particapant was greeted and
thanked for their particapation. First they were ask and sign the informed consent form
and sign it. They were then explained the procedure of the experiment. They were asked to
view a word and then asked to read a question pertaining to the word they just viewed on
the screen. Then they were asked to respond to the word either yes or no only. The answer
was recorded by another experimentor. The particapant was then flased 
Results
The experiment had two (response type) x four (task type) anova with repeated measures.
The numbers are in proportion form because of the self referent effect. For the other
three tasks, the yes and no responses were set prior to carrying out the experiment,
whereas with self referent the yes or no outcome could not be set before hand because it
was unknown how the particapant was going to respond. Therefore the reponses were
converted into proportions to be able recognize main effect differences. The main effect
differences were recognized if p was less .05. There was a significant main effect of
response type on recall. F(1,19)=33.28: p=.0001. Items that received a yes response were
remembered significantly better than items that received a no response. (Ms=.26 and .143
respectively). The least significant difference (LSD) test was used to find the
differences between the means. Since the design was a within subject design the formula
that was used was as follows:
LSD= Tcrit Msw (2/n)
Tcrit= T critical
Msw= Means within
N= number of particapates
There is a significant main effect of task type on recall. F(3,57): p=.0001. Adjectives
rated with self referent task were remembered significantly better than those rated with
somantic task (Ms=.465 and .209 respectively). Further adjectives rated semantic task
were significantly betterthan those rated with phonetic task (M= .087) or the structural
task (M= .047). There was a significant response type by task type interaction F(3,57):
p=.0001. For both yes and no response items adjectives rated with self referent task were
remembered significantly better than items at a semantic task. Further, for both yes and
no response items, semantic task adjectives were remebered better than phoneic and
structural task. Differences were largfer for response items (see table 2). 
Bibliography
intro