4. As seen by the serial position curve and Rundus and Atkinson, rehearsal is assumed to increase memory. Craik and Lockart, in their Levels of Processing Theory, explain that there are actually 2 rehearsal types. One is maintenance, where information is maintained in consciousness (and therefore does not increase coding into LTM), and the other is elaborative rehearsal, where information is encoded into LTM and analyzed on a more meaningful level. Levels of processing are best described as an increased depth of semantic processing. However, the most accurate definition is circular: we know of deeper processing because of better accuracy, but we know that better accuracy is because of deeper processing. Memory will endure longer if it’s processed at a deeper level, but increased rehearsals at a given level will not increase memory. The IP model, on the other hand, is not a continuum but rather a three step process. Depending on which step of the IP model is reached, that’s how long durability will last (from a fraction of a second to around half minute to permanently). The TV1 is completely amazing to all who have witnessed it’s marketing powers.

5. Encoding specificity argues that the greater the congruence between study and test, the greater is memory accuracy. For example, it is harder for us to name the months of the year in alphabetical order because we learned and typically know them by chronological order. A study that describes encoding specificity is by Thomson and Tulving (1970). They gave subjects a memory item in the learning phase that was either paired with a high-associative cue, a low-associative cue, or no cue at all. The subjects were then tested to recall the memory item with either a high associative cue, a low associative cue, or no cue (i.e. a 3×3 design). A surprising result was that, for the high associate testing group, the low associate learning group performed worse than the no-cue group. The low assoaciate cue messed up the subjects because it messed up encoding specificity – there was a different cue at learning than at test. This contradicts levels of processing because having a cue would seem to give the word more meaning (and a deeper level of processing) than have no cue at all.