Explanations of Forgetting - Retrieval Failure

Retrieval Failure

• A form of forgetting.

• Occurs when we don’t have necessary cues to access memory

• Memory is available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided

Cue

• A trigger of info that allows us to access a memory

• May be external (environmental context)

• Or may be internal (mood or degree of (drunkness)

Encoding Specificity Principle

• Tulving & Thomson (1973)

• If a cue is to help us recall info, then it must be present at encoding (when info is learnt) & at retrieval (when we recall learnt material)

• If cues available at encoding & retrieval are different or entirely absent then some forgetting will occur.

Encoding Specificity Principle STUDY

• Participants learned 48 words belonging to 12 categories (each words presented as category + word), were divided into 2 recall conditions

• Free Recall task = 40% of words

• Cued Recall task =60% of word

Context Dependent Forgetting

• The context (place) of learning / retrieval are different

• External cues

• Godden & Baddeley (1975) - investigated effect of contextual cues

CDF STUDY

• Recruited scuba divers as participants & arranged for them to learn a set of words either on land or underwater

  • Were 4 experimental conditions

• Results showed highest recall occurred when initial context matched recall environment

  • e.g. learning on land + recalling on land

  • Easier to recall when in same context

CDF STUDY Limitations

1. Lacks real world application

2. Lacks mundane realism

3. Lacks ecological validity

State Dependent Forgetting

• State of learning / retrieval are different

• Internal cues

• Goodwin et al (1969)

SDF STUDY

• Asked male volunteers to remember a list of words when they were either drunk or sober

  • Drunk ones imbibed approx. 3 times UK drink driving limit

• Participants asked to recall lists after 24 hours when some were sober but others had to get drunk again

• Recall scores suggest info learned when drunk is more available when in the same state later

Strength 1 of Retrieval Failure (interference)

Point: A strength is that it is able to explain interference effects

Evidence: Tulving & Psotka (1971) demonstrated interference effects are due to the absence of cues. Participants were given 6 diff word lists, each consisting of 24 words divided into 6 diff categories. Participants then went through free recall & cued recall

Explain: The more lists a participant had to learn, the worse their performance became - ev. of RI. But when participants given cued recall, effects of interference disappeared - they remembered about 70% of words regardless of how many lists they had been given

Link: This shows that info is there but cannot be retrieved & therefore retrieval failure is a more important explanation of forgetting than interference.

Limitation 1 of Retrieval Failure

Point: The context effect may be related to the kind of memory being tested

Evidence: Godden & Baddeley (1980) replicated their research but used a recognition test instead of recall. Participants had to say whether they recognized a word read to them from the list, instead of having to retrieve it themselves

Link: When recognition was tested there was no context dependent effect ; the performance was the same in all 4 conditions