Distinction Between Craik And Lockhart 2000

The importance of memory is undeniable, the efficiency of the memory system to store thousands of memories from birth allows people to make sense of the outside world alongside the ability to remember a vast amount of personal events and the capability of performing many skilled and complex motor actions (Eysenck, 2012). Therefore, there is a close relationship between memory and learning; it is often maintained that they involve three stages, to be completed in succession. However, despite the connection between the three stages researchers often focused on them individually (Tulving, & Thomson, 1973).

Early 19th century William James (1890) suggested primary and secondary memory, an important distinction between psychological present

Evidently, it became one of the most influential theories of the 1970s for various reasons. Albeit, to a large extent the structural limitations of the memory stores theory lead to a general dissatisfaction within psychological research, thus creating an environment where alternative theories could thrive (Lockhart, & Craik, 1990). Craik and Lockharts (1972) contradicted James (1890) suggestions of primary and secondary memory, stating there is no clear distinction between STM and LTM. Also, the LOP theory, in contrast to the multi-store theory, was a none structured approach. Craik and Lockhart proposed two forms of processing; shallow and deep, shallow (perceptual processing) were physical and sensory characteristics of the stimuli are received by the subject to be encoded. Deep (semantic processing) recognising patterns and extracting meaning, forming a relationship between information. As a result, encoding develops memory traces; shallow processing creates a particularly weak memory trace. Therefore, the information is, quickly lost. Whereas deep processing, produces long-term memory traces, in turn, suggests higher rates of retention (Ekuni, Vaz & Bueno,