retrieval failure

retrieval failure

• a form of forgetting

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

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

encoding specificity principle

• tulving (1983) reviewed research into retrieval failure and discovered a consistent pattern

• encoding specificity principle

• some cues encoded at the time of learning in a meaningful way

• cue ‘STM’ may cause you to remember stuff about short term memory, this is used in mnemonic techniques

• other cues are also encoded not meaningfully, two examples; context-dependent forgetting, state-dependent forgetting

encoding specificity principle

• states that a cue, if helpful, has to be both

  • present at encoding

  • present at retrieval

• if not, there will be some forgetting

context dependent forgetting

• recall depends on external cue

• e.g. weather or place

state dependent forgetting

• recall depends on internal cue

• e.g. being upset, being drunk

research on context dependent forgetting

• godden and baddeley (1975)

godden and baddeley procedure

• studied deep sea divers who work underwater to see if training on land helped or hindered their work underwater

• learned list of words either underwater or land and then recalled words either underwater or land

• 4 conditions;

  • learn on land + recall on land

  • learn on land + recall underwater

  • learn underwater + recall on land

  • learn underwater + recall underwater

godden and baddeley findings + conclusions

• in two of these conditions environmental context matched and in the other two they didn’t

• accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions

• external cues available at learning were different from ones available at recall and this led to retrieval failure

research on state-dependent forgetting

• carter and cassaday (1998)

carter and cassaday procedure

• gave antihistamine drugs to their participants

• serves mild sedative effect making participants slightly drowsy

• learnt lists of words of prose and then recall information

• 4 conditions

  • learn on drug - recall on drug

  • learn on drug - recall not on drug

  • learn not on drug - recall when on drug

  • learn not on drug - recall when not on drug

carter and cassaday findings + conclusions

• in the conditions there was a mismatch between internal state and learning at recall, performance was significantly worse

• when cues are absent, forgetting more likely

real world application AO3

• strength

• retrieval cues can help overcome forgetting

• although they may not have a very strong effect, baddeley suggests they are still worth paying attention to

• e.g. forgetting something you remembered when in a room, going back to the room and remembering

• should recall environment to improve recall

research support AO3

• strength

• godden and baddeley + carter and cassaday

• show lack of relevant cues at recall leads to context + state dependent forgetting in everyday life

• eysenck and keane argue that retrieval failure is main reason for forgetting from LTM

• retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as lab

counterpoint for research support

• baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are not that strong, especially in everyday life

• different contexts have to be very different for an effect to be seen

• hard to find environment as different as land and water

• may not explain everyday forgetting

recall versus recognition AO3

• limitation

• context effects depend on type of memory being tested

• godden and baddeley (1980) replicated their experiment but used recognition instead of recall

• had to say whether they recognised instead of retrieving it themselves

• in recognition, there is no context-dependent effect, performance was same in all conditions

• only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise

problems with ESP AO3

• forgetting takes place when there is a mismatch of encoding and retrieval cues (tulving’s ESP)

• however is it possible to independently establish whether a cue has been encoded or not

• the reasoning is based on assumptions, if a cue did not produce recall we assume it wasn’t encoded

• affects validity