Retrieval failure

A01 - Encoding specificity principle AND Context-dependant forgetting

Encoding specificity principle

• States that if a cue is to help us trigger the recall of information (i.e. our memory) it must be present at encoding (when we learn the information) AND at retrieval (when we are recalling)

• If the cues that are available at encoding and then if they’re different at retrieval (or if they’re absent) there will be some forgetting

Context - dependent forgetting

• Cues may be external cues (e.g. places, rooms etc)

• When info is learnt, cues are encoded alongside it

• If there is an absence of these cues at the point of recall context - dependent forgetting may occur because there is nothing in the environment that triggers the recall of memory

A01 Example Godden and Baddeley Context - dependent forgetting

Procedure

• 18 divers learned a list of 36 unrelated words either underwater or on land and then they were asked to free recall the words either underwater or on land

Findings 

• When participants were in the same context for learning and recall (land-land, water-water) the participants recall of words was higher in comparison to when they were in different contexts for learning and recall (land-water, water-land).

• This is because the external cues available were different at encoding and retrieval - this lead to retrieval failure

Conclusion 

• This suggets that memory is better when the context for learning and retrival is consistent 

• When information is encoded in memory, associated contexts are recorded at the same time - e.g. places if these contexts are different at retrieval then it is more likely to be forgotten.

A01 State - Dependent forgetting

• Cues may be internal cues. This includes mood, emotional state or physiological state of the person when they first learnt information

• The absence of these internal cues (e.g. a change in emotional state of the individual) can lead to state dependent forgetting

AO1 Example of state dependent forgetting - Goodwin et al

Procedure

• Male volunteers were required to remember a list of words when they were either drunk or sober.

• Participants were then asked to recall the list of words after 24 hours

• Some were sober and some got drunk again

Findings

• Participants had higher recall when they were in the same physiological state (drunk-drunk or sober-sober) at both learning and recall

Conclusion

This suggest that if mental physiological states are different at the time if retrieval than encoding then forgetting is more likely

Strength : supporting research

• One strength of retrieval failure is that there is supporting evidence for state-dependent forgetting

• Carter and Cassaday gave participants either an antihistamine that causes drowsiness (sedative effect) or a placebo and asked them to learn a list of words

• The same participants had to recall the same words while either taking the same antihistamines or the placebo

• They found that the word recall was higher when participants were in the same physiological state (e.g. drowsy and drowsy) compared to when they were in a different physiological state (e.g. normal-drowsy)

• This shows that when internal cues are present at encoding but different at retrieval due to being in a different state forgetting is more likely to occur

• This therefore increases the validity of retrieval failure

Strength: application to real world

• one strength of retrieval failure is that there are practical applications to the real world

• For example, Abernethy suggests when trying to recall information we imagine the room (surroundings) where the information was learnt (mental reinstatement) in order to trigger recall

• This is effective as actually being the same room where learning information took place (context reinstatement) at the time of recall, improves its accuracy

• This is a strength as research on retrieval failure suggests ways it improve recall in everyday life as we mentally recreate cues needed to trigger memories and recreate information

• This therefore increases the validity of the theory

Limitations: relies on artificial evidence

• one weakness of retrieval failure is that it relies on artificial evidence meaning we cannot apply it to everyday real life

• For example, in Godden and Baddeley’s research, the contexts of learning and recall are extremely, e.g. land or underwater

• This is a problem because the real world environments for learning and recall are usually a lot more similar

• This shows that a change in environment is quite small thus it is less likely to lead to forgetting

• As a result there are limits of application of retrieval failure to explain forgetting in everyday life as retrieval failure is due to contextual cues but cannot explain forgetting in most everyday situations

• This therefore decreases the validity of the supporting evidence which could be questionable therefore reducing the overall validity of the theory

Limitation: Influenced by the way memory is tested

• A weakness of retrieval failure is that the extent of forgetting depends on the way memory is being tested

• Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition task instead of a free recall task

• When recognition was tested there was no context - dependent forgetting meaning that the accuracy of recall was the same when the context for learning and recall was the same or different

• This is a limitation as context only affects memory when you test it in certain ways which undermines the values of the theory in explaining forgetting

• Therefore this may be an incomplete explaination of forgetting which cannot be applicable to all situations