6. Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure

define encoding specificity principle

memory retrieval is improved when the encoding context is the same as the retrieval context

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)

A: demonstrate the value of retrieval cues

P: pps had to learn 48 words belonging to 12 categories. each word was presented as a category + a word (e.g. fruit-apple). two different recall conditions = pps either had to recall as many of the words as they could (free recall) /or were given cues in the form of the category names (cued recall)

F: free recall = 40% of words were recalled on average, cued recall = 60% of words were recalled on average

C: suggests that cues that been encoded at the time of learning have a meaningful link to the learning material = when info is learned, we remember the environmental context and our emotional state at the time

state the 2 types of cues

external cues = context-dependent learning

internal cues = state-dependent learning

Godden and Baddeley (1975)

A: investigate context-dependent forgetting

P: 18 divers were asked to learn lists of 36 unrelated words of 2/3 syllables. pps either learned the lists underwater or on land and were then asked to recall the words either underwater or on land (four conditions)

F: mean number of items recalled was highest when initial context matched the recall environment (beach = 13.5, underwater = 11.4)

C: support for context-dependent learning

Goodwin et al (1969)

A: investigate state-dependent forgetting

P: 48 male medical students participated on day 1 in a training session and on day 2 in a testing session. randomly assigned to one of four groups (sober both days, intoxicated both days, sober day 1 and intoxicated day 2, intoxicated day 1 and sober day 2). pps had to perform 4 tests (avoidance task, verbal task, word-association task, picture recognition task)

F: more errors were made on day 2 in the intoxicated-sober and sober-intoxicated conditions than in the both sober and both intoxicated conditions. both sober pps performed best in all tasks

C: supports state-dependent forgetting theory

one strength is real-world applications

Smith (1979) suggests that thinking of the room where original learning occurred was as effective as being in the same room as time of retrieval

example of how psychology can have practical applications to the real word (e.g. exams, cognitive interview) and highlights the positive aspects of scientific research

however, retrieval cues are only really effective on recalling simple info (e.g. word lists), not complex exam material

Smith and Vela (2001) suggest that context effects are largely eliminated when learning meaningful material

thus retrieval failure only explains some instances of forgetting = high level of research support can be explained due to lack of mundane realism in experimental tasks (learning word lists)

non-generalisable to all instances of forgetting, lacks ecological validity

one strength is research support for the importance of retrieval cues on memory

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) in a lab exp demonstrated the power of retrieval cues

Abernethy (1940) demonstrated the importance on context-dependent learning among a group of students studying a course

much of the supporting evidence has relevance to everyday memory experiences = high ecological validity

one limitation is the relationship between encoding cues and later retrieval is a correlation

Nairne (2002) calls this the ‘myth of the encoding-retrieval match‘

Baddeley (1997) pointed out the ESP is impossible to test because it is circular = if a stimulus leads to the retrieval of a memory then it must have been encoded in memory, but if a stimulus does not lead to retrieval then it can’t have been encoded in memory (according to ESP) = it is impossible to test for an item that hasn’t been encoded in memory = cannot be proved

suggests that cues do not cause retrieval, they are just associated with retrieval