Explanations of forgetting: 2. Retrieval failure due to absence of cues

Retrieval Faliure

A form of forgetting. It occurs when we don't have the necessary cues to access memory. The memory available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided.

Cue

A ‘trigger’ of information that allows us to access a memory. Such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning.

For example, cues may be external (environment context) internal (mood or degree of drunkenness).

Retrieval Failure Theory

People forget due to insufficient cues. If cues are not available at the time of recall, it may make it appear as if the information has been forgotten but in fact, this is due to retrieval- not being able to access the memories that are there.

Context - dependent Forgetting (environmental context)

This is where the relevant cues in the environmental that were there when you learnt the information, are then missing from the place you then recall the information in. This stops you remembering the information.

State- dependent Forgetting (internal)

This is where there are psychological or physiological differences between how you felt when you were learning the information then how you feel when you are later recalling the information; which may affect recall.

Key study: Godden and Baddeley (1975) - Context- Dependent Forgetting (AO1)

Aim- to investigate if recall was affected when ppts had to recall info in a different context to where they first learnt the information.

Method - drivers learned a list of words either on land or underwater. They were then asked to recall the words either on land or under water. Therefore there are four conditions:

1) learn on land - recall on land (matching)

2) learn on land- recall underwater (non- matching)

3) learn underwater- recall on land (non-matching)

4) learn underwater- recall underwater (matching)

Results- in two of these conditions the environmental context of learning and recall matched, whereas the other two did not. Accurate recall of the words was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions.

(+)context dependent Forgetting is supported by Godden and Baddeley

A strength of the retrieval failure Theory of forgetting is that it is supported by research. For example, Godden and Baddeley (1975) asked drivers to learn words either on land or underwater. They were then asked to record the words in either the same or different context to where they originally learned the words. They found that accurate recall was 40% lower when ppts were asked to recall words in a different context (cue absent) to where the words will learn compared to recalling the same context (cue present). This supports retrieval failure Theory as a valid explanation of forgetting because the study demonstrates that forgetting can occur when a cue is absent at the time of the recall.

Godden and Baddeley (-) supporting evidence has low population validity

A limitation is that what has low population validity. For example, the sample consists of 18 divers and therefore cannot provide evidence for the retrieval failure explanation of forgetting in non drivers. In addition, 18 ppts is a small sample size and therefore is only a small amount of data to draw conclusions from. Limitation as the findings may not generalise to other people who are not drivers. This therefore reduces the confidence that the conclusion is valid because of limited data.

Key study: State dependant forgetting- Darley Et Al

Aim - Darley et Al (1973) wanted to investigate state-dependent forgetting

Method - their ppts smokes cannabis and then were asked to hide some money whilst high. They were then asked to find money again; some of whom were still high and others whom were no longer high.

Results- people who were still under the influence of cannabis when asked to find the money were more successful in doing so compared to people who were sober and asked to do the same.

(+) state dependent Forgetting is supported by Darley at al (1973)

The retrieval failure Theory of forgetting is supported by research. For example, Darley et Al (1973) asked ppts to smoke